Except, Nephy, I didn't mention Clinton - I referred to individuals who served in his administration. I did that because I read AP stories saying people in his adminstration had come out in support of Roberts.

And actually, I love it when the 2000 election continues to be brought up. The middle of the country knows sour grapes when they see them and it just pushes them away from the dems.

Sour grapes? I never supported Al Gore's campaign for president.

Dem? I have never been a registered Democrat and I would have voted for John McCain if the FundiFools, in their never ending search for a savior, hadn't fallen for an immoral turd in righteous clothing during the primaries.

What a bizzare, and scary, time we live in when anyone left of the far far far far right is considered a liberal or a Democrat.

If you read my original post- I did mention that myself Leo. You did not mention Clinton- and the reaction was kneejerk and meant to gut your opinion.

The dems have nothing to offer except those sour grapes, hostility and division- the day they set aside irrational hatred and start offering viable alternatives- then maybe they will not be so entirely irrelevant.

And the reps apparantly have nothing to offer but to imply that if you're a liberal and disagree with Clinton or one of his administration then you're a hypocrite.

Registered or not- you kick out their most venomous talking points, conspiracies and attacks as if they are second nature.

So, are we going to discuss the judicial nominee here or just make sweeping statements about groups of people we don't like?

OK, I believe you. However, I would suppose that most people who do continue to bring it up are on the far left, such as Soros, Dean, etc. I believe the effect is the same, so it doesn't bother me.

I would agree with your second statement quoted above - however, I consider it sad that someone with great judicial credentials will be attacked by Schumer and Kennedy because he is somewhere right of the far far far far left.

Maybe we have a different definition of judicial credentials.

What about his judicial record is so great? He's only been a judge since 2003. True, he's been involved in the business of law for quite a few years, as law clerk, lobbyist and partner. Is that what you find so attractive about him?

Well, that and his experience with stealing elections.

*ducks*

You're so bad Haha