The way I see this article is that the author put himself in the role of Holden Caulfield, who is a pure soul, looking for honesty, thin skin, just wanting kindness, no patience for the grabbing hands. If the author of this article when he or she puts himself in this role, likes Ron Paul. Rad! Vote for Ron Paul. It came from a true place. I'm interested in this method of making decisions, picking someone you admire and figuring out what he or she would do in such a situation. It is the method of a learner, a student, not a braggart or know it all. I think the author of this article achieved an essence of J.D. Salinger. Thank you for bringing Salinger out of hiding for us.

Please research sound money and the Federal Reserve.
Since the Federal Reserve was created nearly 100 years ago, the purchasing power of one dollar has collapsed to four cents. That is inflation caused by the Federal Reserve. The Federal Reserve can do this because our currency is backed by nothing. If our currency was backed by gold/silver or another physical product, it would maintain value.

Our system is collapsing. Dr. Ron Paul is suggesting ways to fix our system. If we don't listen and act, in twenty years we can rewrite everything from scratch when our system has collapsed.

"I mean, I don't know what the hell he's talking about when he gets all intellectual about the gold standard"

Thanks for your opinion Holden - how about taking two seconds to do some research.

You will soon realize that the value of the American dollar was maintained by the gold standard for about 200 years and now that it's not, it has dropped by over 90%. This is not rocket science - that you haven't looked into it is almost beyond belief.

I voted for Ralph Nader in 2000, and I was living in Florida then. I'm sorry! But at the time, I believed his statements that there is little difference between the two major parties. I still believe that -- Dems and Repigs are both beholden to Big Business, not the people. But had I known what a disaster George Bush would be, and how Al Gore is so much better than the image-consulted earth-tone suits he was groomed to wear, he would have gotten my vote. The Rethuglican power structure wpuld probably have cheated the election out of Gore's grasp anyway, but I would not feel the guilt I feel today.

As for moving to another country, my wife and I emigrated to Australia after Bush stole his way to another four years of ruining the country in 2004. It's more government-controlled here than in the U.S. and let me tell you Paulites something -- life is better here! Everyone has health care in exchange for their high taxes, for instance. (Except me -- as a non-citizen on a work visa, I have to buy private health insurance, which is as much of a rip-off as in the U.S.)

The Aussies, who are slack in many ways, do have an instant runoff electoral system that WORKS, in contrast to the crooked duopoly in the U.S. If you vote Green as your first choice for Member of Parliament, you can mark Labor as your second, and your vote goes to that candidate if the Greenie doesn't get 50%. Senate seats are divided based on the proportion of the popular vote that parties get in each Aussie state. So Greens, Nationals (the rural redneck party), Democrats (motto "We'll keep the b@stards honest") and other small parties actually have enough federal politicians to tip the balance in the national legislature. If a less-sophisticated country like Australia can do this, why can't the U.S.? Because it would destroy the power of the RepubDemo duopoly, but that's another story...

Anyway, good luck, my (formerly) fellow Americans! With what's coming, you're going to need it.

Ron Paul is the only candidate who makes sense and has a long record of integrity.

Those who think he is "crazy" have not honestly researched his candidacy. He certainly is not a dictator and how can you call someone crazy for wanting to abide by the constitution and the advice of the founding fathers? They gave us a republic (if we can keep it).

He understands the purpose of the federal government, but argues it has become way to large, inefficient and interferes too much in our lives.

He will not get rid of national parks, but he may try to divest the gov't of some of its federal holdings in the west. That could help us reduce our debt easily while promoting investment (heard of oil shale anyone?)

He is for the environment, a strong national defense, all the things you guys think he isnt for - he just approaches it in a way most arnt use to - so rather than try to understand it - they brush him off as crazy.

He is running a platform of hope and individual liberty that is unmatched in our time.

If you havent yet - take the time to learn about this astounding true gentleman.

I'm now an ex-democrat - and I will be voting for Dr. Ron Paul to be our next President.

To anyone considering voting for Nader (or any other 3-party candidate): I voted for John Anderson in 1980, because I thought he was the best candidate. We got Reagan. I will never make that mistake again. Our country has a two-party system, we have to face that reality. Our country has no meaningful qualifications for either being allowed to vote or for being a candidate. Try changing that first.

I find it very shameful that so many posters here are so ignorant of what a candidates issues are. Some person smearing Dr. Ron Paul because he wants to get rid of the Dept. Of Education - a monolithic sludge beauracracy that is completely ineffectual and replace it with State resposibility. Like how our founders envisioned. The way it should be! End the war on drugs! YES. COMMON SENSE.

Abolishing the income tax? How is that nutty? We allow our government to be completely irresponsible with its spending and we allow it to make policy based on special interests. Taxation without representation! Anybody ever hear of that. Guess what? If the government stopped policing the world to a tune of almost a trillion a year, stopped the consistent printing of paper money by the fed and using OUR TAXES to pay back that interests... WE COULD HAVE THE MONEY WE EARN!!

I am always amazed that some here would vote and support for the same Top Tier MSM generated candidates and think they are actually getting a unique choice.

Sorry to inform you, but it is Not Ron Paul who is kooky one but all the 'business as usual politicians' who have no real solutions to anything, just talk. And many of you are just so happy so sop that up.

Drink water, not kool-Aid - it's refreshing.

I will vote for Freedom. Ron Paul.

What a moron. Holden talked to Jane Gallagher? About politics??? Sleep tight!

"By the way, was it this scandal that made Nader seem so alluring to you in 2000? How did that work out for you? You enjoying the Bush presidency?"

Hey Andres, what part of the question indicated that he lived in a state that went to Bush? If he lives in a blue state, then who gives a crap that he voted for Nader? Maybe he made that judgment that he could vote for Nader without fear that he was helping Bush?

You're a stupid hack. Your jokes aren't funny and your writing is idiotic.

Andres,

You totally missed the point of the second question:

The questioner is suggesting that Hillary Clinton is a hypocrit.

Not that she had anything to do with the affair, but that she was unwilling to call it "sexual harrassment", when she would have been shouting it from the rooftops if Bill Gates, or some generic, non-political, CEO had engaged in the same behavior.

It wasn't Monica that would be the victim in such a lawsuit, it would be Linda Tripp and every other hard-working but ultimately unattractive (or unwilling-to-submit-to-sexual-advances-for-job-advancement) female in the office.

*That* is the real Hillary. She is willing to throw her "sisters" under the wheels of the bus, so long as a popular Demonrat president is driving. It has nothing to do with the fact that she is married to the particular philanderer in question, either. She would have looked the other way if the male in question were Ted Kennedy, Harry Reid, John Edwards, or Jimmy Carter.

Later.

Since you have such contempt for Gore, did you read Life in the Balance before you voted in 2000? I'm sure you did. The author's question to the questioner was, "How is your vote working out for you? How are you enjoying the Bush presidency?" You seem to be enjoying it fine. Me? No so much.

WHAT???

It's *RON* Paul who's running?

How disappointing. I thought I was going to get to vote for RuPaul.

Rats.

I'll never cease to be amazed at all the people who say that choosing to vote for Nader over Gore was not one of the reasons Bush was elected, but that "the problem is with the system." It's like claiming "yeah I was driving really fast around the curve on ice, but it's not my fault I crashed! The road was built wrong! And the car's brakes were poorly designed!"

Sure, there may be faults with the system, but any half-idiot voter knows that going in. We have the responsibility to educate ourselves and vote our conscience. I have no problems with those who vote for a third-party candidate (I've done it myself), but you have to understand the risks and think it's worth it. And if you vote for a guaranteed loser in a close race in a crucial state, complaining about the outcome and blaming the system is pure hypocrisy.

Let's face it, Al Gore is a good person, but he is a LOUSY campaigner. John Kerry is a STUPID campaigner.

Bush played to the poor idiots in the South, as well as the wealthy. I live in the South, and he gave all my stupid racist friends that little wink and let them know that he was one of them. We all know it when we see it, even when we don't acknowledge it. People are more easily moved by fear than hope, and Bush is fantastic at making people feel afraid. The Republicans are masters at making monsters out of blacks, homosexuals, Latinos, Muslims, and anyone else who is darker than rice or doesn't agree with this asinine war in Iraq.

"Anybody who would vote for [Nader] doesn't have a clue as to what it takes to be president of the United States."

But you do? Who did you vote for? Bush gave us war, a shrinking dollar, and no OBL. Clinton gave us NAFTA, China 's WTO membership, and a lot of wasted time because he couldn't keep his cigar in his pocket. I'm looking for honesty, public service and a proven track record of taking on a lying, business-preferential government. You're looking for...what? A winner? Congratulations

Interesting how he decries phonies in the first part and then makes a snide comment about voting for the only non-phonie on the ticket that year.

Stumped:

Question #1: Pretty good Salinger take-off.

Question #2: Why did you automatically assume the Nader voter was a man? Everything about that question sounded as though it was posited from a female point of view. I guess "male" is always the default assumption. Doesn't make it less careless on your part.

Steve:

Al Gore had every opportunity to distinguish himself as worthy of Nader's supporters' votes. Not to mention that he ran a terrible campaign, lost his home state and stuck environmental issues in his back pocket. If you're looking to point fingers as to why Al Gore lost, there's a long line of non-voters, Supreme Court Justices, and GOP vote-suppressing strategists ahead of Nader. Not to mention the terrible and unworthy candidate at the top of the ticket.

*****************************************
*****************************************
*****************************************
*****************************************

I sort of liked Ron Paul at first also.

That was until he spoke to the Family Research Council and told them that basically if he doesn't like how Congress votes on an issue while he is president, he will take away their power to vote on that issue.

He said he would abolish the Department of Education, and I think he said something about getting rid of taxes. And, I'll bet a de facto Libertarian crowd like the nuts in the Family Research Council would hearing that kind of junk... that is, if he had first said we should get out of Iraq.

When I heard Ron Paul speak, I heard a guy who sounded a lot like a would-be dictator. We've had a dictator for seven years. We don't need another.

Yeah, maybe Holden Caufield would like Ron Paul, but Holden was a mentally unstable, whiny little punk and not unlike our current occupant of the White House. A self-deluded crazy like Ron Paul as President? No way. Been there; done that.

*****************************************
*****************************************
*****************************************
*****************************************

Asking someone how their vote for Nader was working out for them and how they are enjoying the Bush presidency is not harrassing them for voting their conscience, it is merely a polite inquiry. The fact is not only we but the entire world is suffering because of that self indulgence. The Nader run was based on Nader's absurd charge that there was no meaningful difference between a failed oil exec and the author of Life in the Balance, the sponsor of the Kyoto accords,and the Senator most feared by the polluting industries. The author merely wanted to know if the questioner had learned anything. We all have to make moral choices. You can either accept the moral consequences of your actions, or you can deny them, but you can't avoid them. I stongly beleived -- a belief amply supported by events since -- that Gore was an excellent choice with at least as much commitment and more attainments relative to the environment than Nader. But even if I had not, I would have had the moral obligation to yes! vote for the substantalluy lesser of two evils (if that was what I beleived) rather than sacrificing the nation and the world so that I could tell myself I maintained my personal purity and thereby throwing the election to Bush. If I had selfishly chosen to throw my vote away to maintain my purity, I hope I would at least have the intellectual honesty to accept the consequences my actions imposed on the nation and the world. It is absurd to say the fault was with the ballot or with the winner take all system. The winner take all system is what we have. You have to be intellegent enough to know that when you vote and take that into consideration. (Granted, no one could have known that the Supreme Court would violate the majority's stated principles of deference to state law and state court decisions and its aborance of applying equal protection to state voting disputes to elect the president by judical fiat.)

Incidentally, Ron Paul is not a nut because he doesn't agree with me. Ron Paul is a nut because he is a nut. For example, he does agree with me on the war (or I with him), but he is still a nut.

Oh man, what a snide comment: "By the way, was it this scandal that made Nader seem so alluring to you in 2000? How did that work out for you? You enjoying the Bush presidency?" I cant think of anything more un-American than hassling someone for voting their conscience. You know why people voted for Nader? Cause they didnt want Bush or Gore! Hows that for simple? They preferred Nader. Don't blame them for a stupid electoral system that still goes by the Electoral College. Gore won the popular vote...every other vote in our country for gov,senate,mayor,congressman etc etc goes by popular vote. And with all the other intelligent and preferential voting systems out there ( Instant runoff,Borda,Condorcet,Range voting), we still use the same stupid system. Yes, i understand that Nader and Perot "skewed" the vote, and things would have been different if we only had 2 candidates running. But its a "skewable" system...change it! Don't hassle people who vote for who they want. Why doesn't Andres Martinez stop beating around the bush and say what he really means: "Only two candidates should be able to run for President. I mean, if another person ran against them...it might make it tougher for those 2!" Boo-hoo! Listen, the will of the people was ignored, no doubt...more people wanted Gore than Bush, and I'm not happy about it either. But don't blame "Naderites"...blame the archaic system we use that allows such cluster-F's to happen.

The "Catcher in the Rye" satire was delightful. Ole Ron seem to be too wacky to be phony. I don't back long shots no matter how quaint or appealing so I guess I'm stuck with the front runner.

enogabal: My personal opinion is that the response to the "Nader factor" in 2000 was misplaced (but not unexpected). The problem isn't that Nader ran, and got votes. The problem is that we have a winner-take-all voting system that does not require the winner to obtain 50% of the votes cast. I believe that many voters (especially in FL) were reluctant to vote for Nader because of the "wasted Vote" syndrome. If we moved to a different style of voting we could change that. Instant Runoff Voting would have allowed more people to vote their first choice (Nader) and still have their vote count (most Nader voters would likely have selected Gore second). Google "Instant Runoff Voting" for more info. IRV's (or some other concordant type ballot) would not be perfect, but would be far superior to what we have today.

My opinion: If we'd used such a ballot in FL in 2000, Nader would have garnered many more votes. Gore would have won the state. However, both Dem's and Rep's may have taken notice to how many voters voted for Nader first and they may have realized that (at least some of) Nader's message was resonating with the people.

But yes, if a reverse of 2000 occurs next year, then Republicans will blame Ron Paul. Meanwhile, the problem rolls merrily along.

Goldie, I don't have time to get into a spitting contest with you, so you'll probably get the last word. BUT...first, I didn't tell you to move. I just said you'd probably be happier elsewhere, and I stand by that. Second, it appears you're not big on reading, but if you think a strong government is so important, I suggest you read Why Big Government Doesn't Work, by Harry Browne, and Healing Our World by Dr. Mary Ruwart. (And that is all I have to say on this thread. Good day.)

It seems to be fashionable to dump on Nader-voters as being responsible for the horror of the Bush administration. So, looking ahead, will Ron Paul-voters (or, by extension, voters for any other less-favored candidate) also be held accountable if the White House becomes inhabited in 2009 by another unsuitable president? Just asking.

Goldie2:

"individual states would not have the economic heft that would make going to college affordable through financial aide, or else require students to stay in state to qualify for it." Why do you believe this? Some states (i.e. FL) pay tuition for students who maintain a certain GPA. If some can do it now, why wouldn't others be able to do so when Federal Gov't returns their money?

"Individual states can also be just as corrupt and tyrannical as any government"

Certainly, but you have a much better chance of changing local and state politics than you do Federal.

"... and so we need the balancing powers of state and federal to try to get some justice for those who are not in the majority." I would agree. But that balance should what is authorized by the Constitution. If we want to change that balance (in favor of greater Federal Power) then we should ammend the Constitution to allow it.

"I definitely believe we need a strong federal government, so Ron Paul is not my man."

And as the Fed Gov't keeps on ever expanding, our (We the People) means to curtail that will diminish. I fear that fairly soon, the constitution will be relegated to being "a quaint document written by long-dead white men" and it will not be required to take it seriously. When that happens, we (We the People) will be subject to not the majority of Americans, but to the majority of 445 'representatives' in D.C.

To Goldie2:

First, being in the majority, doesn't make you right.

Second, I (and I believe Ron Paul) am not opposed to numerous Federal Programs because I don't "like" them. I do so because they are unconstitutional.

When the Federal Government establishes and manages a "Department", the Federal Government must have the authority to back up the dicatates and demands that Department levies.

Yes, Congress does have the right to pass legislation. But it does not have the right to pass legislation that expands the powers of the Federal Government.

These "programs" place demands on the states (and the people). Which in effect expands the power of the Federal Government. That, the Legislature is not authorized to do.

To believe that the power of the Legislative branch is only limited by what it can obtain with a majority vote, is standing the Constitution on it's head.

Our written constitution was WRITTEN precisely because it was known that the three branches of government would, over time, attempt to expand their powers.

"We the People" can determine we wish to do so (expand the Fed Gov'ts powers), but we need to utilize the constitution's ammendment process to do so. Not the legistlature.

Bucinka8

Don't just say that I should go to some other country if I don't agree with you. This country allows people to elect their representatives to make the laws, and if people have elected representatives that have made laws to create federal programs, then that is just what the Founders had in mind. You disagree with these programs, but a majority does not. That is why we have elections. If you could get Ron Paul and other Libertarians elected, then the laws would change. But you can't get them elected, which means you have to abide by the rules as they are made. I don't mind Ron Paul running, but I just argue that the press should clearly state his positions. Most people just think he is the Republican who is against the war. And I do think the Libertarian view is nutty as in divorced from reality. The world just can't function that way.

2008 Presidential Election Weekly Poll
http://www.votenic.com
The Only Poll That Matters.
Results Posted Every Tuesday Evening.

MDLaxer:

Also, individual states would not have the economic heft that would make going to college affordable through financial aide, or else require students to stay in state to qualify for it. Individual states can also be just as corrupt and tyrannical as any government, such as in the south and so we need the balancing powers of state and federal to try to get some justice for those who are not in the majority. When I said Paul doesn't believe in federal government, I meant a federal government with programs outside of defense of the country. I definitely believe we need a strong federal government, so Ron Paul is not my man.

Goldie, yes, Dr. Paul is against all those things you seem to want. That doesn't make him a nut, it makes him a constitutionalist. You seem to think Big Government is the only possible provider of services. If you had that money (the taxes you pay) back in your pocket, would you donate it to Big Government so they could provide meals to underprivileged children and financial aid to needy college students? Of course not. You'd donate it to charity. And in a non-Big Government society, that's how it's supposed to work. (You'd probabbly be happier in a nanny country like Sweden or England anyway, where government takes care of you from cradle to grave. Unfortunately, that's not what the Framers had in mind.)

MDLaxer

As you can see by all your TRUE's that I did research Ron Paul. That is why I am alarmed by his stands. The Constitution does give Congress the right to pass legislation, which is why we have federal programs which you don't happen to like, but I do. There is nothing in the Constitution that says the federal government can't create the programs that the people want. And if a majority of the people want these programs then they will keep voting in the Congress that gives it to them. I think I am with the majority.

I'm an employment discrimination attorney who occasionally deals with sexual harassment cases, and I can think of no circumstances in which the facts described by the allegedly-"liberal" questioner would constitute sexual harassment of the *other* female employees. Courts have consistently held that affairs between bosses and subordinates -- unfair as they may be to other employees -- do not, in and of themselves, constitute sexual harassment of those employees.

In fact, assuming that the "low-level female employee" in the hypothetical behaved exactly like Monica Lewinsky, she wouldn't have a sexual harassment case either, because a key element of sexual harassment is that the sexual behavior be *unwelcome* to its object. As we all know, Bill Clinton's behavior was not just "welcome" to Lewinsky; she actually invited it.

I'm appalled that Martinez not only doesn't appear to know the first thing about sexual harassment law, but apparently didn't bother to do any research before responding to the question -- thereby contributing directly to public misperception about just how serious sexual harassment really is. Let me assure you, a genuine "hostile environment" is far more "hostile" and debilitating than simply having to deal with a coworker who is having sex with the boss.

I'm an employment discrimination attorney who occasionally deals with sexual harassment cases, and I can think of no circumstances in which the facts described by the allegedly-"liberal" questioner would constitute sexual harassment of the *other* female employees. Courts have consistently held that affairs between bosses and subordinates -- unfair as they may be to other employees -- do not, in and of themselves, constitute sexual harassment of those employees.

In fact, assuming that the "low-level female employee" in the hypothetical behaved exactly like Monica Lewinsky, she wouldn't have a sexual harassment case either, because a key element of sexual harassment is that the sexual behavior be *unwelcome* to its object. As we all know, Bill Clinton's behavior was not just "welcome" to Lewinsky; she actually invited it.

I'm appalled that Martinez not only doesn't appear to know the first thing about sexual harassment law, but apparently didn't bother to do any research before responding to the question -- thereby contributing directly to public misperception about just how serious sexual harassment really is. Let me assure you, a genuine "hostile environment" is far more "hostile" and debilitating than simply having to deal with a coworker who is having sex with the boss.

The American voter reminds me of Scrooge imploring Marley to speak comforts to him with Marley being the atypical candidate Caulfield would admire as he cold repied: "I have none to offer."

Instead, the typical candidate today is P. T. Barnum and like Barnum, relies on a media that is far too much into the relish of controversy and scandal to put up with a candidate who puts out the unwanted truth that Americans are going to have to endure pain to get through the mess they have allowed our politicians to create.

Witness the latest circus act with clown Bob Novak squirting a foul smelling odor into the raucous crowd and hinting that odor is the smell of scandal involving Clinton and Obama. The media and the public fall for it of course. Which likely means that the comforts they are aching to hear in Scrooge-like fashion will most certainly come from another phony clown, Rudy Giuliani.

Gosh, just get rid of the Federal government and everyone can be free ! Brilliant ! Why didn't I think of that ?!
"Phoniness" is part of the real world, and in that sense they are all quite authentic in their phoniness. Get over it, Holden.

I'd suggest those Naderites who describe voting for the nominees as a choice between the lesser of two evils should pick up a newspaper once in a while. I haven't seen Ralph Nader win any Nobel Peace Prizes lately. For that matter, Ralph Nader has been running on his reputation for killing off the Corvair while not accomplishing much of anything else for forty years. He's nothing more than a talking head in a bad suit. He would be a disaster as president. Anybody who would vote for him doesn't have a clue as to what it takes to be president of the United States.

To goldie: You need to research Ron Paul yourself, don't just believe the media soundbites. Please visit www.ronpaullibrary.org.

"he is also against the federal government" WRONG. Ron Paul is FOR the U.S. Constitution which firmly establishes a federal government.

"(he is also against) social security" TRUE. Since he believes it is not a good investment (~2%!) and is not sustainable. He does NOT advocate immediately abandoning SS. Instead, he wants to give younger workers the opportunity to opt out of this program in favor of one that produces higher rates of returns, and provide savings that belong to the individual, not congress.

"(he is also against) medicare". TRUE. Because it isn't working and is unsustainable. As with SS, he does NOT plan to cut off medicare, but instead allow younger workers to opt out.

"any form of income tax on individuals" You say that as if it were a bad thing! TRUE. Mainly because the US Federal financial difficulties are not caused by lack of funds coming in to the government, but by too much spending by the federal government. Federal Spending could be cut to the point where "income taxes" were not necessary. Thereby giving most individuals an instant raise!

"although he doesn't mind prayer in public schools and is anti-abortion so he thinks the government should be involved in the private lives of women." WRONG. If a "right to privacy" exists in the U.S. Constitution, it is because the 9th ammendment states that rights not mentioned in the first 8 ammendments shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." Thus, the Federal Government has no say. Also, Ron Paul does not believe that the Constitution delegates the power to rule on abortion the federal government. As such, per the 10th Ammendment, he believes that such power should be left to the states.

"Worried about bad food from China or harmful pharmaceuticals... well, he doesn't believe in a federal department of health." TRUE (that he wants to close the Dept of Health). Again, no constitutional authorization for DofH, and they didn't do such a great job preventing "bad food" from China anyway.

"No Department of Education either" TRUE. No such power authorized by the Constitution. Also, why is it necessarily a given that the states (which would all get money back that they now send to the Dept of Ed) couldn't spend money on programs like Head Start and financial aid to college students?

"This guy is really a nut and it is the media's responsibility to expose him." Beleive me, the MSM is working overtime to discredit Ron Paul. What makes it difficult is that he is consistent in his positions (and has been for over 30 years). The other Republican (and Democrat) candidates can not say the same thing. Thus, there is plenty of fodder out there for their opponents and the MSM to throw about.

This article is blasphemy. Kucinich...maybe. But Holden Caulfield for a Republican?! Never in a million years. Salinger ought to sue you guys.

Amen to that brother! Dr. Ron Paul is America's last best hope to rid us of the phonies that rule our lives.

Interesting perspective that "Holden" lends to the political scene...also a poignant reminder of just how insane the past 7 years have been with this crowd of looneytunes running things.

Ron Paul is the latest media fantasy. Why don't they explain just what this guy is about. Sure he is against the war, but he is also against the federal government, social security, medicare, any form of income tax on individuals, although he doesn't mind prayer in public schools and is anti-abortion so he thinks the government should be involved in the private lives of women. He is a very extreme candidate. Worried about bad food from China or harmful pharmaceuticals... well, he doesn't believe in a federal department of health. No Department of Education either, which means no Head Start and no federal financial aid to college students. This guy is really a nut and it is the media's responsibility to expose him. They would rather play up the fantasy aspect of it though, without explaining anything as usual.

"[W]as it this scandal that made Nader seem so alluring to you in 2000? How did that work out for you? You enjoying the Bush presidency?"

You exemplify why the U.S. is so screwed up. I voted for Nader as well, because he was was not the lesser of two evils. He's a guy who dedicated his life to public service; who spurred safety in the automobile industry; who pushed for locks on airline cockpit doors before 9-11, which would have prevented Atta and his boys commandeering those planes; and pushed for numerous other measures that benefited citizens. But most Americans are like Oakland Raiders fans--screaming, drooling, slack-jawed, dull-eyed, beer-swilling, grease-,salt-, sugar-eating tubs of guts who have squandered all the advantages the country ever had--just to be on the winning team. A team whose captain doesn't care, never cared, and never will care about you. Nader cared.

As demonstrated on this forum, for some people, the only thing that matters is hating Clinton. I guess they just cant stand the fact that Bill Clinton was the best president in the second half of the 20th century, even with impeachment. He certainly was better than any of the crooks and traitors that the GOP has been foisting on us for the last 50 years.

Hillary Clinton is hardly my first choice for president. However, she would be head and shoulders above any of the nut cases running for the GOP nomination, and that goes double for Ron Paul.

So Angryperson, HRC has no principles and doesn't deserve the whitehouse b/c she didn't want us looking at it very seriously once it was proven true? What does "looking at it very seriously" mean? So she would have principles and desrve the whitehouse if she divorced him? Or made him sleep in a hotel for 6 months? Or 6 weeks? Or what? BTW, I'll probably vote Obama or Edwards. Don't like HRC's bullhorn voice and pure as the driven snow self image ("I've never even thought of epithets" or some such silliness when accused of using one) I just don't get your personal distaste bordering on hatred for someone who seems like a decent person--even if she doesn't share all of your views.

I just cannot imagine why anyone would vote for Hilliary for president, thus allowing a formerly impeached president back in the White House.

What a slap in the face to Americans to even let Bill on the front steps. I think America has too much pride to let Hilliary get in the White House ever. Not to mention the fact that she has contributed absolutely nothing to this nation except the worse scandals and deceit ever.

Most over rated book in the twentieth century.

Yes, Hillary helped to control the "bimbo eruptions" when Bill was in office.

See this wikipedia article on Betsy Wright, who coined the term "bimbo eruption."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betsey_Wright

Before you let Hillary off the hook by claiming that she did nothing to create a hostile workplace for female White House employees, I would like you to delve further into her (personal and very active) role in "dealing with" her husband's indiscretions (during the entire time that he was at both the White House and the Governor's Mansion).

Books have been written on the topic, but to begin with, a few introductory facts are pertinent:

1. In responding to allegations by Jennifer Flowers, Paula Jones and at least one other woman, Hillary worked actively with her husband's legal teams whose job it was to pressure these women into recanting their allegations and/or testimony which incriminated Bill. This has been recently documented in Bernstein's new Hillary bio.

In other words, these women had given sworn statements about being victims of inappropriate sexual behavior by the President and then the President's attorneys -- who are "officers of the court" -- tried to scare and intimidate these women into changing their statements.

Hillary was one of those lawyers working on the President's team to undo these other women. At the very least, it is very "unliberated" of her to try to quash the claims made by such a long list of women, just because it was politically inconvenient for her. (As a woman attorney -- though not a Yale Law grad! -- I cringe at such actions on her part: not only would it seem to violate legal ethics, but . . . is that how she demonstrates her "solidarity" with her sisters?)

What woman in the workplace could fail to take notice of such "pressure" from the boss's wife? I think I would have felt constrained, if not downright fearful, about whether I could, or would, have dared to complain about potentially abusive behavior in the workplace.

2. Hillary's participation in the "cover-ups" and "clean-ups" involving Bill's indiscretions was legendary. In addition to Bernstein's book, a recent book by a White House staff secretary (sorry I don't remember her name, but heard her interviewed on NPR) stated that she, too, was pressured to change certain statements she had made regarding these "behavior problems."

3. Hillary was instrumental in having her husband refuse to settle the case with Paula Jones [Jones' team offered to settle in exchange for: (a) an apology from Bill and (b) a set amount of money / punitive damages (which was not excessive, but large enough to show that something was being apologized for)].

Throughout all the proceedings in the Flowers and Jones cases, Hillary and the rest of the legal team sent the signal to women that they were ready, willing and able to fight tough and dirty, thus attempting to intimidate them and to dissuade them from reporting situations involving her husband's behavior.

4. By the way, let's not ignore the fact that Hillary was able to make the workplace hostile for MEN who got in the way, too. In Arkansas, certain members of the governor's security staff were terminated when they began to speak out about the then-governor's "indiscretions" mentioned earlier.

5. In closing, I would note that even though Hillary was the "cheatee," she was, at the same time, Bill's "enabler." She kept mopping up for him (and for her?) and apologizing for him. As a result, many of us citizens feel that we also became victimized as the "cheatee" -- so that gives us standing to complain about Hillary's enabling his behavior. It is a lot harder to be sympathetic with a woman who CLAIMS to be liberated when it pleases her voting constituency, but who doesn't walk the walk when she THINKS that nobody is watching.

PS: By the way, I voted for Al Gore (and previously for Clinton twice -- but I absolutely do not want anymore dynasties in our government!!!).

It must be a real stretch for a link to national controlled media to say sumptin good about Ron Paul.. I thought all you people (remember Ross) were supposed to tout those with headquarters in another nation, like Rudy. BUT, you can bet one thing, I do like the U.S. Constitution and once swore to uphold it. PS-Why do Fed Reserve execs get to go in a bunker in Montana around the bend? Will the bend reveal a break?

I doubt Holden would have said anything of this sort: "We take these people in because we need them to work for us".

Holden was an individualist and, like 80- percent of the nation, "He" nor I invited these illegal border hoppers in. Holden would have said something more like:

"The corrupt business and etnocentric special interest groups take these people in, lay them on our backs to support, make me invite them up to my cabin where they trash the pasture and flip me the bird every morning as thanks..and then wonder why I'm mad as hell. Skruw em all! H.C."

I think the author of this piece is a phoney - certainly not JD Salinger.

Hillary shouldn't have to take the blame for her husband's screw-ups but she has been in a way mentored by him in politics and she's done very well in regard to letting him slick-up her campaign and tone. She supported the war (as Bill did) up until the time she announced her candidacy for the presidency and then tried to make everyone believe she was against the war all these years. In fact, Hillary voted to give Bush the gun so he could pull the trigger on Iraq just as she voted to give Bush a gun so he could pull the trigger on Iran. She denies doing so but that's where the southern trickster in her and Bill kicks in.
Bill came to office on a platform of supporting gay rights and then gave America Don't Ask, Don't Tell and to top it off, The Defense of Marriage Act. Hillary says she supports gay rights but considering her interning politics with her husband, how can she be trusted? There's been a few times when she had to be goaded into support by gay protest so the issue of trust is one that's a valid one.
Hillary talks about her commitment to universal healthcare but that commitment was in limbo after its defeat and certainly after she and her husband left the White House; she forgot about it and no one heard from her on the subject until she decided to run for the presidency. So the Big Lie has become her mantra; say something often enough and people will believe it. In Hillary's case, she says it often too, and that's her unswervering support for universal healthcare. Her amnesia about the subject after she left the White House is ... well ... forgotten. In fact, in her years as a senator, she's proposed no major legislation and none has passed with her name as initiate. Where's the leadership then, the great leadership she talks about? So, when you vote the next time, who do you trust will be a major concern. Although I prefer Dodd or Kucinich, two men who would really get us out of Iraq, my bets are on Obama or Edwards. Even though neither will get us out of Iraq even by 2013, at least they don't wait for the public to decide their stand on issues. Obama and Edwards are leaders who take a stand in front of the political winds and not behind them.

I'm speechless with delight. Thank you.

Very clever. Might even be some truth in it. However, nobody can write like Salinger. But nice try. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.

Two nice Hillary Clinton comments come to mind:

"I'm not some Tammy Wynette standing by my man." - early in her First Lady years.

"If that [Bill lying in court documents] were proven true they [the American people] should look at that very seriously, but that will not be proven true." - early in the Monica era

(Quotes not verbatim; I'm going by memory.)

It WAS proven true, she then dismissed the idea of the American people or their representatives looking at it very seriously, and she amounted to one well-focus-grouped Tammy Wynette standing by her man for her career's sake.

No principles on that one, thus no presidency in her future. No problemo with the Dem nomination though.