The Anchoress on Richard Durbin's remarks, and how few Democrats are saying anything about them:

If Hillary Clinton does not have the moral compass to know that this is a time to break ranks with her party and come down on Durbin for his remarks, then no matter how much she purports to support the troops, she can never be their CIC. If her instincts, in this matter, are not fine-tuned enough to know what to say and how to say it, then how will she ever get a clue as to how to serve our nation or win a war on terrorism? If Hillary Clinton simply tries to duck and fade (with the assistance of the press) then there is simply no way she is demonstrating the leadership abilities necessary to govern a nation.

Disappointing to see that Joe Lieberman and Chuch Schumer had nothing to say about DurbinÂ’s remarks, either.

Hubert Humphrey would NEVER have stood for DurbinÂ’s remarks. Nor would either Jack or Bobby Kennedy. Or Scoop Jackson. They would have been the first to jump on him and demand his absolute retraction of those statements, and they would likely have told him to resign his leadership position while he was at it.

I mean, if you recallÂ…Trent Lott resigned his leadership position for much, much less. He resigned because heÂ’d been over-exuberant, spilling into offensiveness, when he wished a 100 year old man a Happy Birthday. And he resigned because his own party, the GOP was embarrassed, and had the sense to tell him to resign.

The Democrats canÂ’t do it.

Read the whole thing.

Posted by: Attila at 08:35 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 273 words, total size 2 kb.

. . . lands in Iowahawk's crosshairs, with hilarious results.

Posted by: Attila at 10:28 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 14 words, total size 1 kb.

Sissy Willis is covering the movement to impeach President Bush; hit her main page, and keep scrolling. I've tried to write about this issue, but I just collapse in giggles. My bottom-line advice to the Democrats is this: knock yourselves out. No, really—have fun.

Of course, it doesn't weaken Hillary's hand at all: the sillier the supposedly mainstream Dems act, the more Hill looks like The Only Electable Person in her party.

And I still believe that in her first term she would govern from the center; it's only in the second four years that she will become truly dangerous.

The world needs grownups, Zonker.

Posted by: Attila at 08:05 PM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 109 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Hillary will most likely be their candidate, but I don't think she has a chance of winning unless the Rep. candidate is really a lousy one. I agree - spend your time and energy trying to impeach Bush. It's a hopeless waste of time.

Posted by: Jamie Dawn at June 04, 2005 08:43 PM (pj9lX)

2 Thanks for the nice link, doll.

Posted by: Sissy Willis at June 05, 2005 02:23 AM (7WFgX)

3 Hillary won't be running 'cause Willy is HIV possitive and he will be fading fast by then. Poor Willy, we hardly knew ye.

Posted by: comrade jamima at June 05, 2005 08:00 AM (o2TWn)

4 You know we're in trouble when you look at the Washington Post and wonder if you're reading the Onion. Let me get this straight: they want to impeach President Bush. Did I just have a rather vivid dream or something, or did we not have a national referendum on whether or not to remove Bush from office, about eight months ago? An election, I think they called it? My recollection is that the pro-impeachment side lost. I know liberals live in a different world sometimes, but I'm sure I remember them participating in said referendum. What startling new evidence has since been brought to public attention to merit these quite startlingly tedious new demands?

Posted by: Simon at June 06, 2005 06:45 PM (GRyHA)

5 Bush lied and stuff.

Posted by: Attila Girl at June 06, 2005 10:29 PM (8e5bN)

Hide Comments | Add Comment