I don't think Hillary is electable either, because of the same reason. Women are 60 percent of the voters in this country and a woman won't vote for another woman. The smarter, prettier, and more popular they are, they more they hate each other. But Hillary is among those Democrats trying to drag the party to the center and she will be very influential in the next few years.
Her voting record is mixed, actually. She definitely votes Democratic, but she is not in lock-step with the Dean/Kennedy camp. Sure, she is a liberal to a Republican, in the sense that all Democrats are liberals. But in the Democratic party, She is on the moderate/progressive side, not the far left. And so was Bill. This does not make her into the true third-party moderate like I'd like to see as a candidate. And neither is McCain. But both Clinton and McCain are going to be successful because they are in the center-leaning camps of their respective parties.
My, aren't you impressed with your own rhetoric. I made my point and it still bothers you, doesn't it. "We all" know that, eh? Well, you are only speaking for yourself here. Your use of silly sterotypes and invocations of "breeding grounds for socialism" is sadly delusional, I'm afraid. It is yet another instance of lamely trying to discredit your opponent instead of addressing his statements. "Don't listen to that man behind the curtain, his mind is warped by his associates. He is a communist!" Sure. Look, if you want to debate an issue, then make your points, back them up and respond to my points with some civility. If the best you can manage is schoolyard taunts and name-calling, then go over to the junior high because I find it tiresome.
I'll try to restate it simply. If I cite a website that you think is socialist, communist, French, or martian . . . SO WHAT? You are free to cite Rush Limbaugh or whoever you want to in response. But just accusing the source of being prejudiced does not refute the facts stated. It only attempts to discredit the source. I'm not going to find information that disagrees with Bush at O'Reilly's site, after all. You found a good source to support your domestic spying contention and I accepted it. But I made several other very valid points that you just can't accept. And you can't simply cry foul if I cite a source that happens to annoy you. It doesn't make the source wrong.
It's not a matter of thinking the source is one way. It's a matter of the source explicitly calling itself as such.
