NY Times Supports Hillary

I actually gasped when I saw that picture of Hillary. Truly frightening!!!

Sometimes I wish I was a paparazzi guy that takes pictures of people at their worst. Sure, it's soulless, but it's gotta be fun.

Since Gov. Ed and Mayor Mike endorsed her I'm sure the Inquirer will follow suit. Plus they always follow the NY Times endorsements. The Inquirer is just the NY Times Lite.
Now that my old friend, Fred Thompson, is out I'm thinking of voting for "None Of The Above".

P.S. Being to the right of Hillary is not right wing. Moderates and Liberals are to the right of her too.

although i can't say my primary vote is going to Hillary (ha! as if the pennsylvania primary actually made a difference in late april!), goodtimes - i would not start using what the founding fathers had in mind as an argument against her.
if the issue of Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton is such a disgrace, i think your time is better spent analyzing the voting patterns of the citizenry of the US, our electoral college and campaigning strategies of the last 25 years.

I actually watched "Easy Rider" for the first time over the holidays. 'Seasonal holiday' present from one of my daughters. Let me share a few quotes and see if you think they still have relevance.

George Hanson: You know, this used to be a helluva good country. I can't understand what's gone wrong with it.
Billy: Man, everybody got chicken, that's what happened. Hey, we can't even get into like, a second-rate hotel, I mean, a second-rate motel, you dig? They think we're gonna cut their throat or somethin'. They're scared, man.

George: They're not scared of you. They're scared of what you represent to 'em.
Billy: Hey, man. All we represent to them, man, is somebody who needs a haircut.
George Hanson: Oh, no. What you represent to them is freedom.
Billy: What the hell is wrong with freedom? That's what it's all about.
George Hanson: Oh, yeah, that's right. That's what's it's all about, all right. But talkin' about it and bein' it, that's two different things. I mean, it's real hard to be free when you are bought and sold in the marketplace. Of course, don't ever tell anybody that they're not free, 'cause then they're gonna get real busy killin' and maimin' to prove to you that they are. Oh, yeah, they're gonna talk to you, and talk to you, and talk to you about individual freedom. But they see a free individual, it's gonna scare 'em.
Billy: Well, it don't make 'em runnin' scared.
George Hanson: No, it makes 'em dangerous. Buh, neh! Neh! Neh! Neh! Swamp!

The NY Times is irrelevant in my mind, as is Nutter's endorsement or Rendell's. Who cares what they think.

"I'm sure that a duarchy is just what Washington, Jefferson, et al, were hoping for when they put the country together."

Washington probably wouldn't care for what we have going on, but Jefferson pretty much invented the two-party system, didn't he?

this is a disgrace. Everyone talks about what a liberal newspaper the NY Times is, and now they go and support the wolf in sheep's clothing, the Republican in disguise as a Democrat. Way to take a stand, NY Times, you are who I thought you were, just another part of the corrupt, sell out, mainstream American media.

I heard a rumor that on Tuesday the New York Times will endorse the practice of "drinking one's own urine".

Possibly Wednesday.

I heard drinking urine distorts your sense of reasoning. ie Democrats become Republicans; Dog torturers become Dog lovers; etc.etc.

Go back to beer, Willie Pee!

just because she cozies up to WalMart and her hubby can't keep his Willie Horton to himself doesn't mean she would be a bad choice. Just because she is pro-war and blows in the wind like John McCain (who, last time I checked was a SURRENDERING - read: chicken- man who spent 6 cozy years in a Vietnam hotel getting his fingers and toes tended to while real troops were out in the field dying and he resfused to go home and face the music when the Vientamese offered because he was scared of his daddy)and will do anything she can to get the office. Her experience may only consist of riding a wave of empathy to a bought seat in the senate but come on, the woman teared upon tee-vee. That's got to be worth more than a man who had the temerity to stand up for what he beleived in and vote against the war when Dear Leader lied and said we were all threatened. I bet she even had the guts to totally capitulate and buy the bs line about 'Capitol in danger' so we have to vote for more government intrusion (c/o the 'small government' folks, mind you). And come on! - do you really want to elect a man whose middle name sounds like Saddam's (post- friendly handshakle Saddam. Not the good guy he used to be when the GOP was busy selling him weapons) just because he represents change? I didn't think so. ps: don't disparage the newspaper that held onto the domsestic spying until after the election. They were only doing what they felt was best - hiding the truth from the VOTERS.

Blah blah blah. This website is turning into the Wall Street Journal op-ed page. This is the page of the ultimate man of leisure? And how.

oops - sorry, Anonymous. Hey gang - let's all talk about Britney!! yay, fluff.

Oh snap, it's an anonymous vs. anonymous smackdown! Re: Fink's comment, interesting note: I am currently reading a book about Jefferson called American Sphinx, and came across this line just today: "I am not a Federalist, because I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else where I was capable of thinking for myself. Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent. If I could not go to heaven but with a party, I would not go there at all."

Very good Johnny---Jefferson considered himself an Anti-Federalist. He certainly did not create the Democratic Republican party that developed only after he became President. It did develop around him and James Madison, his protege, was the architect of the party.