I'm not so sure, at least not yet. She craves power; while she was dogged by roadblocks during her tenure as First Lady, as VP she can wield power, based on a strong showing in the primary battle, to effect the programs she sought while First Lady. In other words, she may feel she has more of a chance to write history, as a strong VP, than she ever did before. And this strategy may be her way of fluffing her feathers as a demonstration effect. Time will tell.
She'd probably have more power as senate majority leader, even though the title is a bit less glamorous.
I was very surprised to read lately she's burned out on being a Senator. She wants out, if this story has any validity.
Lol. Yep, when the Speaker was presented with flowers on assuming the post, someone made the unfortunate choice of the species Delphinium ajacis, Rocket Larkspur. Clinton apparently never got past "Rocket" before hitting the deck, yelling "Bosnia, Bosnia...." and then lapsing into catatonia.
Ah, well, to Larry's credit, Youtube was not the only place this has surfaced. It's been well documented in radio interviews, as well as filed legally with the PD.
Exactly. In fact, what we do know about him, more than not, contradicts what he claims to be. He claims to be for civil liberty, but has no problem trampling the Constitution. He claims to be anti-war but he keeps enabling it. And in my opinion, he keeps talking about change for America, but the change he seems to envision involves selling out to the UN. Yeah, i don't want to get OT with this. But I think my point is legit, in that there are a lot of details which create doubt in the official investigation. The same amount of intellectual honesty (which you correctly assert) is always a good thing. Where we have questions, we should seek answers. Making a subject off topic, particularly to defend politicians who are supposed to be accountable to us, does no citizen any good.
The only questions I have are, why didn't we wage a war on terror the first time the WTC was attacked?
That's also a good question, which has not been credibly answered. I believe after the 90's WTC attack, we bombed Kosovo and put Iraq on sanctions. More irrational behavior, not meant to address terrorism. Sorta like our open borders, but we confiscate shampoo from grandmothers at the airport.
Yeah, that is retarded... I think the best thing you can do now is teach our youth about Islam and the dangers of radicalism. The more we breed peace into kids, the less terrorists we will have over time.
Why do I always have this picture in my mind of a spoiled overweight 13 year old in mom and dads basement when Julian posts?
I am? Seems you should be in that Lets Learn More About thread started by Cylon... You are so out of touch.
Anti Obama folks are squarely on the wrong side of history. They will go down like the people who thought Nixon would be better than Kennedy, like the people who thought Martin Luther King was "anti-American." Yup. Enjoy your trip into the irrelevant past stodgy ol' "conservatives."
EVERYTHING I have ever read shows Clinton took terrorism far more seriously than Bush did before 9/11. Without 9/11 the American public would not have supported the supposed 'war on terror' Even now the way Bush changed it into Iraq the American public by and large is sickened and had enough of much of it. Another consequence of invading a country in the name of 'terror' who had nothing to do with the terrorists we face, while letting the terrorists we were battling free to regroup.