I don’t mean to be difficult, and I don’t mean to get off the topic of the very thread I started, but I have to say that this is a pretty standard salvo to lob at Democrats. I’d like to see a few of those examples. I’m not asking for a bunch of quotes and stances, but a few. I’m always curious to see exactly what people mean when they say that Democrats are leading us to some kind of a “nanny state.” It’s not often that people explain it, and you seem like the kind of person who could.
As to Hillary Clinton: it’s the rare senator, I believe, who doesn’t think of the Senate as a stepping stone to the presidency. Sure, many Senators never have a ghost of a chance, I think they all think of the next step while they’re holding office. If she ran for president without having served in elective office first, I’d be far more skeptical about her, but I’d say Clinton has proven herself competent, and competence is something I like in a leader. A lot. As to serving New York: like you said, she’s doing that as a senator right now. If she made it to the presidency, she’d be able to serve the state a lot more, and she’d owe other New Yorkers who got her where she is. I don’t think in such terms, myself, but I’d say that’s a reasonable response to that argument.
If I can scare up some free time during the day, I’ll try my Google-fu. Please note, I haven’t assailed Democrats nor Republicans as a group, only individuals like Schumer, D’Amato and Bush. I’ve no problems with Weiner, my representative. I thought Moynihan was very good, probably the best elected representative for NYS that I’ve known. Mayor Koch was pretty good; Dinkins was horrible. Emperor Guiliani had his good and bad moments - if he wasn’t limited by term limits, I would not have voted for him again. I do think Clinton is good for NY overall, although I’m turned off by her “state shopping” for political office. I use a statement in jest quite often, but I think Hillary really exemplifies it: Just because I’m paranoid doesn’t mean they aren’t out to get me.