Don't Worry About Hillary

[red states rule]

Folks, there is nothing to fear about Hillary in 08

She will be another George McGovern



Hillary Clinton: George McGovern Version 5.0
By John Hawkins
Friday, July 27, 2007

One of the biggest misperceptions out there is that Hillary Clinton is an unstoppable juggernaut who will run roughshod over any candidate that the GOP puts up in 2008.

Does that mean she's a guaranteed loser? No, not at all. The country is closely divided and 2008 will likely be a tough environment for the GOP, so if you had to bet on a winner, the edge would have to go to the Democrats right now. That being said, Hillary is a weak candidate and almost any set of numbers you look at with regard to her candidacy seems to confirm it.

For example, in late June of this year, A Mason-Dixon poll showed that 52% of Americans and 60% of independents wouldn't consider voting for Hillary. Meanwhile, in that same poll, her disapproval rating was 42%, the highest of all the candidates, and her approval rating was only 39%.

These numbers would be bad news for any candidate, but they're particularly devastating for Hillary because the voters know her so well. Americans watched her in the White House for eight years and they've had a chance to look over her work as a high-profile Senator. Their conclusion? Hillary Clinton doesn't have what they want in a President.

Another dangerous indicator for Hillary is her mediocre numbers in match-ups against Republican candidates. Keep in mind that George Bush's poll numbers are incredibly low right now, Americans are extremely unhappy with how Iraq is going, the Republican base is demoralized, and GOP fund raising is terrible. In other words, if you're a Democrat, the field can't tilt much farther in your favor over a Republican than it does right now.

Yet, if you look at the latest numbers from Rasmussen polling, in head to head match-ups, Clinton only ties with Fred Thompson at 45%. Additionally, she barely beats Rudy Giuliani 44% to 43%, defeats Romney 46% to 42%, and crushes John McCain 47% to 38%. In other words, Clinton is essentially tied with the two GOP front-runners even though the political environment is almost as favorable as it can get for her.

So, what happens if the American people become even more disenchanted with the Democratic Party, which has done a disastrous job since it took over Congress in 2006? What if the surge continues to work and Bush pulls 50,000 troops out of Iraq because they're no longer needed? What if Bush's frighteningly low approval numbers, which almost can't go down much further, rebound? In other words, it may be as good as it's ever going to get for Hillary right now. Moreover, you've got to ask if Hillary is the right candidate, at the right time, in the right place for the political climate we have in America right now

for the complete article

http://townhall.com/columnists/JohnHawkins/2007/07/27/hillary_clinton_george_mcgovern_version_50

[glockmail]

Wishful thinking.

[red states rule]

Wishful thinking.

Glock, stop being sucked in by the liberal media - she will not win a national election

[glockmail]

Glock, stop being sucked in by the liberal media - she will not win a national election I wasn't aware Rush was part of the Liberal media. Last I heard he was predicting the same thing. It's not the first time he's agreed with me.

[red states rule]

I wasn't aware Rush was part of the Liberal media. Last I heard he was predicting the same thing. It's not the first time he's agreed with me.

I do not get to listen to Rush - but he did say she would not run for the Senate the first time

Fifty percent of adults would not vote for Clinton
By Kelly McCormack
March 27, 2007
Half of voting-age Americans say they would not vote for Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) if she became the Democratic nominee for president in 2008, according to a Harris Interactive poll released Tuesday.
More than one in five Democrats that participated in the survey said they would not vote for Clinton. Overall, 36 percent say they would vote for the former first lady and 11 percent are unsure of their top choice.

Forty-eight percent of Independent voters also said that they would choose another candidate over Clinton, the poll, which surveyed 2,223 potential voters, states.

Fifty-six percent of men said that they would not vote for Clinton, while 45 percent of women said that she would not be their pick. In addition, 69 percent of those 62 and older said that they would not vote for Clinton.

Nearly half of the respondents said that they dislike Clinton’s political opinions and Clinton as a person. Fifty-two percent of people also said that “she does not appear to connect with people on a personal level.”

http://thehill.com/campaign-2008/fifty-percent-of-americans-would-not-vote-for-clinton-2007-03-27.html

[glockmail]

I do not get to listen to Rush - but he did say she would not run for the Senate the first time
..... Well I didn't think she would either. That was about two years after I left the state. Then when she ran I said that upstaters would come out in droves and vote against her, and downstaters would stay home with indifference. I was wrong twice about her and I won't be fooled again.

Just like a cat she has to be stopped pre-emptively. :poke:

[red states rule]

Well I didn't think she would either. That was about two years after I left the state. Then when she ran I said that upstaters would come out in droves and vote against her, and downstaters would stay home with indifference. I was wrong twice about her and I won't be fooled again.

Just like a cat she has to be stopped pre-emptively. :poke:

That is one pussy you can do whatever you want to

She will be stopped - by the Rudy Express

[glockmail]

That is one pussy you can do whatever you want to
....

:puke: I'll leave her to Mike Moore. He's said publically that he'd do her. Of course I don't think he could find it, and she's had her's sewn shut shortly after Bill got elected the first time.

[red states rule]

:puke: I'll leave her to Mike Moore. He's said publically that he'd do her. Of course I don't think he could find it, and she's had her's sewn shut shortly after Bill got elected the first time.

Both of them are so fat, one would have to give directions. Like 2 water buffalos doing it

[glockmail]

Both of them are so fat, one would have to give directions. Like 2 water buffalos doing it That's a vision I wish not to dwell on.

[red states rule]

That's a vision I wish not to dwell on.

Unless you had to induce vomiting

[avatar4321]

I think she is weak as well, but i dont think its good to underestimate anyone.

[red states rule]

I think she is weak as well, but i dont think its good to underestimate anyone.

Oh no - I am not underestimating her

I know how she is. She is a loud mouth arrogant liberal who wil not shut up. She will continue to bellow her big government socialist views and with the fact half the country hates her - things will fall into place for Rudy

[GW in Ohio]

It's clear from this thread that Hillary scares the shit out of righty-tighties.

All the brave talk and bluster reminds me of schoolboys whistling in the dark to keep their courage up.

When Hillary is the nominee and starts to appear on national TV every day, she will charm the voters and your polls about people saying they'd never vote for her will go up in flames.

The most disturbing thing for you guys is that your Republican women will defect to Hillary. She is a role model for women. And Republican women, after watching white guys like Bush and Cheney fuck things up for years, will be more than ready to put a woman in charge.

And for the next 8 years, during the second Clinton administration, you clowns will suffer the tortures of the damned.

:eek::lalala::eek:

[heh, heh]

[avatar4321]

It's clear from this thread that Hillary scares the shit out of righty-tighties.

All the brave talk and bluster reminds me of schoolboys whistling in the dark to keep their courage up.

When Hillary is the nominee and starts to appear on national TV every day, she will charm the voters and your polls about people saying they'd never vote for her will go up in flames.

The most disturbing thing for you guys is that your Republican women will defect to Hillary. She is a role model for women. And Republican women, after watching white guys like Bush and Cheney fuck things up for years, will be more than ready to put a woman in charge.

And for the next 8 years, during the second Clinton administration, you clowns will suffer the tortures of the damned.

:eek::lalala::eek:

[heh, heh]

Im seriously laughing here cause you actually believe this dont you? I think you are much more scared by any of the Republican candidates then we are about Hillary.

BTW, One of these days you guys are actually going to have to sit down and explain what it is that Bush and Cheney have screwed up. Your mantra is getting old.

[avatar4321]

BTW. having asked women whether Hillary is a positive role model or not, it doesnt seem like many have positive views of her.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Aq5OlU4vNxbc6kWasCXWZr7S7BR.?qid=200707 28055713AAXGB7Z

[red states rule]

It's clear from this thread that Hillary scares the shit out of righty-tighties.

All the brave talk and bluster reminds me of schoolboys whistling in the dark to keep their courage up.

When Hillary is the nominee and starts to appear on national TV every day, she will charm the voters and your polls about people saying they'd never vote for her will go up in flames.

The most disturbing thing for you guys is that your Republican women will defect to Hillary. She is a role model for women. And Republican women, after watching white guys like Bush and Cheney fuck things up for years, will be more than ready to put a woman in charge.

And for the next 8 years, during the second Clinton administration, you clowns will suffer the tortures of the damned.

:eek::lalala::eek:

[heh, heh]


Scare?

Hell, I want you nutty libs to go with her

She is my choice for the Defeatocrats in 08. Please bring Bill out on the campaign trial as well. Seeing the great results he got for Dems in 02 and 04 - I am sure he will do the same for Hillary's election chances as well

[red states rule]

Im seriously laughing here cause you actually believe this dont you? I think you are much more scared by any of the Republican candidates then we are about Hillary.

BTW, One of these days you guys are actually going to have to sit down and explain what it is that Bush and Cheney have screwed up. Your mantra is getting old.

I have asked any lib to list Hillary's accomplishments

I am still waiting

Rudy has a long list of accomplishments - hardly accomplishments that a lib would make

[GW in Ohio]

I have asked any lib to list Hillary's accomplishments

I am still waiting

Rudy has a long list of accomplishments - hardly accomplishments that a lib would make

Hillary's #1 accomplishment is putting the fear of God into right wingers who don't think a woman can run this country.

How hard can it be? I mean, George Fucking Bush was president for 8 years.

(Granted, he screwed things up so badly it will take years to put us back on the right course.....)

[red states rule]

Hillary's #1 accomplishment is putting the fear of God into right wingers who don't think a woman can run this country.

How hard can it be? I mean, George Fucking Bush was president for 8 years.

(Granted, he screwed things up so badly it will take years to put us back on the right course.....)

ask a lib a direct question and get a talking point as an answer

Thanbk you for making my case son

Hillary is being led to slaughter by libs like you

BTW, George has been Pres for SIX years

[GW in Ohio]

Im seriously laughing here cause you actually believe this dont you? I think you are much more scared by any of the Republican candidates then we are about Hillary.

BTW, One of these days you guys are actually going to have to sit down and explain what it is that Bush and Cheney have screwed up. Your mantra is getting old.

The Republican candidates don't scare me a bit.

Listen, I've lived through 8 years of Bush and Cheney. Nothing can faze me now. Any of the leading candidates will be a huge improvement.

And if you have no idea how Bush and Cheney have screwed things up, you're obviously a right-wing dittohead.

[red states rule]

Im seriously laughing here cause you actually believe this dont you? I think you are much more scared by any of the Republican candidates then we are about Hillary.

BTW, One of these days you guys are actually going to have to sit down and explain what it is that Bush and Cheney have screwed up. Your mantra is getting old.

With this kind of an attitude, Rudy will destroy Hillary in a debate

She has nothing on her resume - except her last name

[GW in Ohio]

http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:6YsB2RtFmRtpDM:http://peacemoonbeam.typepad.com/scooters_report/images/hillary_clinton.jpg

Hillary will eat Rudy for breakfast.

[red states rule]

http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:6YsB2RtFmRtpDM:http://peacemoonbeam.typepad.com/scooters_report/images/hillary_clinton.jpg

Hillary will eat Rudy for breakfast.

She will eating crow - like you will be the morning after

[red states rule]

The Republican candidates don't scare me a bit.

Listen, I've lived through 8 years of Bush and Cheney. Nothing can faze me now. Any of the leading candidates will be a huge improvement.

And if you have no idea how Bush and Cheney have screwed things up, you're obviously a right-wing dittohead.

Yea, 8 years of low unemployment, low inflation, record hoke ownership, a shrink federal budget deficit, and a growing economy'

all because of TAX CUTS

Drives libs nuts knowing how well trax cuts work

[avatar4321]

Hillary's #1 accomplishment is putting the fear of God into right wingers who don't think a woman can run this country.

How hard can it be? I mean, George Fucking Bush was president for 8 years.

(Granted, he screwed things up so badly it will take years to put us back on the right course.....)

GW, straw men arent really appropriate. No one has a problem thinking a woman can run the country. We just dont think Hillary is that woman and many of question whether she really is a woman.

President Bush has probably worked harder than you have these past 6 years than you have your entire life. Try living with the pressure of millions of people depending on what you do while having nearly have of them being militant against you actually protecting them and see how you feel.

We have a great economy, we are more secure, have more of our own money, we have been doing good out in the world. Removed dictators. Increased education funding. what on earth do you think that the President has screwed up so much? What on earth is there to fix? your precious global warming nonsense?

[red states rule]

GW, straw men arent really appropriate. No one has a problem thinking a woman can run the country. We just dont think Hillary is that woman and many of question whether she really is a woman.

President Bush has probably worked harder than you have these past 6 years than you have your entire life. Try living with the pressure of millions of people depending on what you do while having nearly have of them being militant against you actually protecting them and see how you feel.

We have a great economy, we are more secure, have more of our own money, we have been doing good out in the world. Removed dictators. Increased education funding. what on earth do you think that the President has screwed up so much? What on earth is there to fix? your precious global warming nonsense?

Hillary is for

raising taxes

increasing spending

apeasement to terrorists

socialized health care

has no problem with oncreased pork


Is thsi what a majority of voters will support?

[avatar4321]

And if you have no idea how Bush and Cheney have screwed things up, you're obviously a right-wing dittohead.

why? because i dont blindly accept your claim that they have really screwed things up? The only two real complaints ive seen on the Administration is their screwed up immigration policy and not curbing the spending like they should. But considering the unique circumstances of this adminstration, the rebuilding they had to do after the clinton administrations cuts and recession, and the fact that we've been cutting the deficit alot in the past few years, Im willing to give them alittle leeway with the second.

To say they have completely screwed up without any thing to back it up and expect people to believe you just because you said so is arrogant and stupid. So back yourself up or shut the heck up.

[avatar4321]

http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:6YsB2RtFmRtpDM:http://peacemoonbeam.typepad.com/scooters_report/images/hillary_clinton.jpg

Hillary will eat Rudy for breakfast.

you realize that Rudy only dressed as a woman on SNL for a laugh and that he really isnt a woman right? And he certainly isnt a lesbian woman. I know you might like that perverse fantasy, but most of us try to be decent individuals. We just dont want to think about it.

[red states rule]

why? because i dont blindly accept your claim that they have really screwed things up? The only two real complaints ive seen on the Administration is their screwed up immigration policy and not curbing the spending like they should. But considering the unique circumstances of this adminstration, the rebuilding they had to do after the clinton administrations cuts and recession, and the fact that we've been cutting the deficit alot in the past few years, Im willing to give them alittle leeway with the second.

To say they have completely screwed up without any thing to back it up and expect people to believe you just because you said so is arrogant and stupid. So back yourself up or shut the heck up.

Immigtration and spending have been the let downs for me

The last thing the Bush haters will not admit is, how the tax cuts have given us a growing economy

Any good news for Amercia is bad news for Dems

[Dilloduck]

Glock, stop being sucked in by the liberal media - she will not win a national election

Then why are you encouraging people to vote for New York Rudy ?

[red states rule]

Then why are you encouraging people to vote for New York Rudy ?

On the issues that matter most to me - war on terror, taxes, and Judges - I agree with Rudy

[red states rule]

The only thing we have to watch is the single bihhest contributer to the Hillary campaign

The liberal media


SFChronicle: Helping Clinton Make Up With the Nutroots of Daily Kos
By Warner Todd Huston | July 29, 2007 - 03:53 ET
It is well known that Hillary Clinton is not the most well-liked Democratic candidate with the Nutroots and the kids at the Daily Kos. She is often excoriated for not being enough of an anti-war candidate and many feel she betrayed the "cause." Still, most left leaning Americans assume that she will be the Democrat Party's nominee and some, like the San Francisco Chronicle, are interested in smoothing the differences between the assumed powerful Internet lefties and candidate Hillary Clinton. Today we get the SFChron acting in the role of mediator, trying to get readers to believe that Hillary is seeing a "thaw" in the hate the nutroots has shown her thus far. They sure hope so, anyway, and here is their bid to help that "thaw" along.

On top of hoping to help smooth the waters for Hillary Clinton, the Chron also goes ga ga over the YearlyKos convention being held in Chicago.

The second annual gathering of the Daily Kos political blog starts this week in Chicago, and here's all you need to know about how influential the YearlyKos convention has become: Five top presidential candidates are going -- including front-runner Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, even though the Kos bloggers don't like her that much.

Analysts say the community of liberal online activists -- the "netroots" -- has become not only a coveted constituency for the left but a legitimate threat to conservatives, who trail Democrats in online campaigning and fundraising.

I have but one question to ask of how "influential" the nutroots has been: What candidate have they gotten elected by flexing that "influence?"

Answer: So far, no one.

Still, I don't want to gloss over their power to raise money from small donors! We conservatives lag behind the nutroots in political donations and that aspect does, indeed, give them a measure of influence. But it has yet to translate into real, substantive power.

So, what of the Hillary make over the Chronicle is trying to foster?

Most liberal bloggers detest Clinton for her 2002 vote authorizing President Bush to pursue military action in Iraq. ... Yet Clinton's relationship with liberal bloggers may be starting to thaw. This week, she sent her spokesman to defend the Kos bloggers against attacks made by Fox News commentator Bill O'Reilly on JetBlue Airways, the convention's most prominent corporate sponsor.

The Chronicle would love this “thaw” to be the case. Fortunately, there is no real evidence that such a thing is taking place except in the Chronicle's fevered imagination.

Naturally, the Chronicle is full of bright and kind things to say about the YearyKos convention taking place in Chicago. It was refreshing, however, that the Chron gave the political right a chance to air their opinion on the leftie blogosphere in this report. Both sides given time like this does not happen very often in the press these days.

The Chron mentioned one thing that, while true as we speak, might not be true much longer...

On the conservative side, A-list speakers assemble at the annual Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) -- where Ann Coulter referred to former Sen. John Edwards with an anti-gay slur earlier this year. But CPAC doesn't have an online community.

And conservatives don't have anything quite like the Daily Kos blog, either. There are highly popular conservative blogs, like MichelleMalkin.com and Instapundit.com. But analysts say the Daily Kos functions more like a community, where liberal smack-talk, tips and strategy are traded and underreported stories are tipped.

CPAC is a dead concept, it seems. It always gets the same crew, never growing much and is not launching itself into the new age of the Internet at all. We conservatives are wasting great opportunities to organize and spread the word.

The Chron makes a good point about the higher level of enthusiasm and activity that the left has exhibited thus far. In answer to this, there is one thing for conservative bloggers on the near horizon that will help us catch up with the left's power on the Internet. A new conservative Blogger's convention is coming in October and it promises to be the first in a series of such conventions that will help energize the right like the YearlyKos has energized the left.

The Conservative Leadership Conference is planning Right-toberfest, a large convention to be held in Reno, Nevada on October 12th, 13th and 14th of this year. They promise some high-powered guests, panels and the like to rival a YearlyKos styled event. It promises to be an amazing weekend. Go see more on the Conservative Leadership Conference at:http://www.clc07.com/index.html

I have already made my own plans to be there and I hope to meet some Newsbusters there. Sign up soon because we need to get rollin' folks. We can't let the left beat us with the Internet. I mean, Al Gore may have invented it, but WE should OWN it!

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/warner-todd-huston/2007/07/29/sfchronicle-helping-clinton-make-nutroots-daily-kos

[red states rule]

It's clear from this thread that Hillary scares the shit out of righty-tighties.

All the brave talk and bluster reminds me of schoolboys whistling in the dark to keep their courage up.

When Hillary is the nominee and starts to appear on national TV every day, she will charm the voters and your polls about people saying they'd never vote for her will go up in flames.

The most disturbing thing for you guys is that your Republican women will defect to Hillary. She is a role model for women. And Republican women, after watching white guys like Bush and Cheney fuck things up for years, will be more than ready to put a woman in charge.

And for the next 8 years, during the second Clinton administration, you clowns will suffer the tortures of the damned.

:eek::lalala::eek:

[heh, heh]

I wonder if any member of the liberal media will ask Hillary about this lie she has been caught in

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7007109937779036019&pr=goog-sl

[red states rule]

Clinton White House Suppressed Hillary's Senior Thesis
The Hillary Clinton campaign will have a few more questions to answer about her husband's tenure in office after MS-NBC reported this morning that his administration demanded the suppression of her senior thesis at Wellesley:

"I got a call from someone at the White House — I don't remember who — shortly after the inauguration, saying the Clintons had decided not to release her thesis," professor Alan H. Schechter told MSNBC.com.
"I said, 'Why? It's a good thesis.' I got some mumbo jumbo about how they were beginning to work on health care and she had criticized Sen. Moynihan in the thesis, and didn't want to alienate him.'"

In fact, the thesis from 1969 contains not a negative word about Daniel Patrick Moynihan, the Democratic senator from New York, and Schechter allows that the real source of fear must have been the subject of the academic paper: Chicago radical organizer Saul Alinsky.

Schechter, a Clinton supporter who has contributed money to her campaigns, said that hiding the thesis, which got an "A" grade, was one of many "quite naive" decisions by the Clintons in those early days — he also lists making gays in the military the first priority, and trying to do too much with her health care plan. But liberals, he said — and he counts himself among them — tend to overreach instead of taking the incremental approach.

After the call from the White House, Wellesley's president, Nannerl Overholser Keohane, consulted with lawyers and closed access to any thesis written by a U.S. president or first lady, a rule affecting only Hillary D. Rodham's thesis. Keohane moved on later that year to be president of Duke University, and now is a visiting professor at Princeton, where she teaches political philosophy, leadership and feminist theory. An Arkansan who was eight years ahead of Hillary Rodham at Wellesley, Keohane is a regular contributor to Democratic candidates and to a congressional PAC that gives exclusively to Democrats, including Hillary Clinton.


On one hand, trying to determine someone's political views by reading a thesis written four decades earlier is silly. Ronald Reagan was an FDR Democrat until middle age, as were several Republican politicians. Hillary herself flirted with the College Republicans at one time in her career. People grow out of some nonsense, especially during their college years, when they have a lot of pressure to try out some of the sillier political positions on the spectrum.

However, the thesis isn't really the story. What's news is the Clinton effort to hide the thesis, proving once again that the coverup is worse than the crime. The Clintons had no problem extorting Wellesley into hiding Hillary's thesis, which makes one wonder what else the Clintons managed to bury during their two terms in the White House.

Hillary apologists have at times tried to distance themselves from the actions of Bill during the 1990s. This shows that the abuses of the Clinton years weren't limited to the man from Hope.

http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/009302.php

[nevadamedic]

On the issues that matter most to me - war on terror, taxes, and Judges - I agree with Rudy

His stance on crime is tough as well being a former US Attorney. As far as the War On Terror, he and Tancredo are the best on that subject followed by Romney and McCain(thats about the only thing McCain is good for these days).

[red states rule]

His stance on crime is tough as well being a former US Attorney. As far as the War On Terror, he and Tancredo are the best on that subject followed by Romney and McCain(thats about the only thing McCain is good for these days).

McDone should go back home and forget about his dream of being President

[red states rule]

His stance on crime is tough as well being a former US Attorney. As far as the War On Terror, he and Tancredo are the best on that subject followed by Romney and McCain(thats about the only thing McCain is good for these days).

Look how Hillary is raising mioney and how the liberal media is defending her

CNBC Pundit Compares Hillary's Cleavage to Barry Bonds, Andrea Mitchell Objects
By Tim Graham | July 30, 2007 - 06:50 ET
The Clinton campaign's attempt to raise money off a Washington Post fashion report on her cleavage drew a very odd sports comparison from CNBC/Wall Street Journal pundit John Harwood on Sunday's Meet the Press: "for her to argue that she was not aware of what she was communicating by her dress is like Barry Bonds saying he thought he was rubbing down with flaxseed oil, okay?" NBC reporter Andrea Mitchell played her usual role of Hillary defender, saying "This was so marginal. This was microscopic evidence of...inappropriate attire." She told Harwood "Sometimes a blouse is just a blouse." Mitchell also claimed it could be a political plus" if Hillary "can connect with women and say, 'You see what we have to put up with? This is the way they trivialize us,' it helps her on—in just about every level."

Anyone who's seen the C-SPAN pictures that drove the Givhan story would agree Hillary wasn't exactly playing Carmen Electra. It was a marginal story based on marginal evidence (although you'd have to think that if Mitchell's trying to stay on Hillary's good side, she would go back and edit the "microscopic evidence" line). But it's as bizarre as a Barry Bonds comparison for Hillary's campaign to insist that the liberal media is hostile to her, that she's a pioneering victim of their male-chauvinist-pig attitudes.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-graham/2007/07/30/cnbc-pundit-compares-hillarys-cleavage-barry-bonds-andrea-mitchell-objec

[GW in Ohio]

Hillary vs. Rudy promises to be a lively, fun campaign.

But there's no conservative in that contest.

Some of you boys seem to have rationalized support for Rudy by focusing on his anti-crime activities and downplaying his liberal stands on the social issues.

But I wonder how many of the nutball Christian conservatives will stay home out of spite next year......

Remember....it's the nutball Christians who came out in droves to vote for those defense-of-marriage initiatives that Karl Rove so cleverly got on the ballot in 13 key states that won the '04 election for President Cheney and his sock puppet.

[red states rule]

Hillary vs. Rudy promises to be a lively, fun campaign.

But there's no conservative in that contest.

Some of you boys seem to have rationalized support for Rudy by focusing on his anti-crime activities and downplaying his liberal stands on the social issues.

But I wonder how many of the nutball Christian conservatives will stay home out of spite next year......

Remember....it's the nutball Christians who came out in droves to vote for those defense-of-marriage initiatives that Karl Rove so cleverly got on the ballot in 13 key states that won the '04 election for President Cheney and his sock puppet.

While Rudy is not a Reagan conservative - Hillary is a typical Northeastern liberal

[GW in Ohio]

While Rudy is not a Reagan conservative - Hillary is a typical Northeastern liberal

I'm just gonna go ahead and disagree with you there.

Hillary has transformed herself into a genuine moderate on many issues and into a (gasp!) conservative on some others.

But you guys who have little altars to Ronald Reagan in your basements and light votive candles under his picture will never accept that Hillary is anything but a Fidel Castro communist.

I wouldn't think of contradicting your worldview, but you should know that the rest of the country is moving on while you're still clinging to your cartoonish, 1960s view of Hillary.

Who cares what you nutballs think, anyway? Everybody knows you'd rather amputate a finger than vote for Hillary.

But Hilllary is slowly gaining support, especially among Republican women who see her as a role model for women.

[red states rule]

I'm just gonna go ahead and disagree with you there.

Hillary has transformed herself into a genuine moderate on many issues and into a (gasp!) conservative on some others.

But you guys who have little altars to Ronald Reagan in your basements and light votive candles under his picture will never accept that Hillary is anything but a Fidel Castro communist.

I wouldn't think of contradicting your worldview, but you should know that the rest of the country is moving on while you're still clinging to your cartoonish, 1960s view of Hillary.

Who cares what you nutballs think, anyway? Everybody knows you'd rather amputate a finger than vote for Hillary.

But Hilllary is slowly gaining support, especially among Republican women who see her as a role model for women.


Moderate?

She is for higher taxes on all wage earners, government run health care, government oversight on CEO pay, liberal Judges who make law from the bench, and appeasement and surrender in Iraq

If that is a moderate - what is a liberal to you?

[GW in Ohio]

Moderate?

She is for higher taxes on all wage earners, government run health care, government oversight on CEO pay, liberal Judges who make law from the bench, and appeasement and surrender in Iraq

If that is a moderate - what is a liberal to you?

"Appeasement and surrender in Iraq"?

Jesus, how does someone respond to that kind of thinking?

[nevadamedic]

Moderate?

She is for higher taxes on all wage earners, government run health care, government oversight on CEO pay, liberal Judges who make law from the bench, and appeasement and surrender in Iraq

If that is a moderate - what is a liberal to you?

I wonder what lie he will come up with to say she is a Conservative?

[GW in Ohio]

I wonder what lie he will come up with to say she is a Conservative?

I wouldn't say she was a conservative....although she was a Goldwater girl in her younger days.

I'd say she is a moderate.

[glockmail]

I wouldn't say she was a conservative....although she was a Goldwater girl in her younger days.

I'd say she is a moderate.
How could you tell what she is since she changes her positions so often?

[red states rule]

How could you tell what she is since she changes her positions so often?

Because she is a liberal?

[red states rule]

"Appeasement and surrender in Iraq"?

Jesus, how does someone respond to that kind of thinking?

Well, you ducked the other points about her

Very telling

[red states rule]

I wonder what lie he will come up with to say she is a Conservative?

Well, libs say Chris Matthews is a conservative

[GW in Ohio]

How could you tell what she is since she changes her positions so often?

The best part about a Hillary presidency will be watching the right-wing wacko men make Number Two in their pants,.

Then they'll go home and demand of their wives, "Did you vote for her?"

Big trouble on the conservative reservation......

:dance::salute::dance:

[red states rule]

The best part about a Hillary presidency will be watching the right-wing wacko men make Number Two in their pants,.

Then they'll go home and demand of their wives, "Did you vote for her?"

Big trouble on the conservative reservation......

:dance::salute::dance:

How is your trip to Fantasyland going?

[GW in Ohio]

How is your trip to Fantasyland going?

Watch and see.....

Because Hillary is the first woman to make a serious run at the presidency, she is a role model for women. Her support among women will cut across party lines.

Rudy is a strong campaigner, but he is no match for the women's vote.

[red states rule]

Watch and see.....

Because Hillary is the first woman to make a serious run at the presidency, she is a role model for women. Her support among women will cut across party lines.

Rudy is a strong campaigner, but he is no match for the women's vote.

Hey, I just thanked the kook left

I WANT you nuts to put up Hillary in 08

[red states rule]

Clinton's Campaign Commits Big-Time Goof
By Dick Morris

When Hillary sharply disagreed with Obama's pledge, in the South Carolina Democratic debate, that he would meet with the leaders of rogue nations like North Korea, Iran, Cuba and Venezuela, she was undoubtedly shooting from the hip. But when she and her campaign spent an entire week attacking and ridiculing Obama -- and now are well into their second week of criticism -- they appear to have lost their marbles.

Put very simply, Hillary is on the wrong side of this particular issue for the Democratic primary electorate. Scott Rasmussen's daily tracking poll shows that Democrats agree with Obama that the president should meet with these foreign leaders without preconditions by 55 percent to 22. His polling shows that Democrats are outsiders who take literally JFK's thesis that we "should never negotiate out of fear, but should never fear to negotiate." As an insider, Hillary was blinded to this reality by her years of exposure to the conventional wisdom in both her husband's administration and in her tenure on the Senate Armed Services Committee. To insiders, it is obvious that a summit must be earned by a rogue state by signaling a willingness to come in from the cold in order to get a presidential audience and the ensuing photo-op.

But most Americans, and especially most Democrats, think that this kind of insider-think is precisely the problem with our foreign policy. They see nothing lost by negotiating and much potential gain from coming to points of mutual understanding.

But the real question is: Why have Hillary and her people persisted in using this issue to beat Obama over the head? Aren't they polling? Do they not know that the issue is bad for them -- or, with Hillary staking out an intransigent and stubborn position, do they not care?

Even as Hillary was calling Obama "naive" and "irresponsible" for his position, her adviser, Mark Penn, was going even further. He told the New York Daily News that Hillary's answer on meeting with rogue-state leaders was "a presidential moment" and that it "was an essential moment that showed she knows what it means to be president." Waxing eloquent to Newsday, he went further and said, "Obama's commitment to meeting hostile foreign leaders would haunt his campaign by pointing up his inexperience." Newsday reports that he said that Obama's position is "so far out of the American political mainstream that it would render him unelectable against a Republican nominee." Since Rasmussen's poll shows that Democrats overwhelmingly agree with Obama on the issue, one wonders if Penn is reading his own data. And since Rasmussen says that voters in general agree with the Illinois senator by 42 percent to 34, it is hard to see how such a stance makes him unelectable.

Meanwhile, Obama, correctly reading the mood of the Democratic electorate (or correctly reading his polls), mocked Hillary's position as "Bush Cheney-lite," emphasizing Hillary's insider way of thinking.

Hillary's stumbles over this issue remind one of her campaign's knee-jerk decision to lash out at David Geffen for his attack on Bill Clinton's administration and pardons. Both mistakes smack of appeasing the boss at the expense of making the right move politically. Each is the kind of mistake that advisers who don't have the confidence to stand up to the Clintons often find themselves making. When Bill's temper is aroused or Hillary stubbornly digs in on a position, it is a daunting task to confront them and convince them that they are just flat-out wrong. Few advisers are able to do it, and it appears that the current crop are helpless in the face of their candidate's insistence on making a mistake.

But perhaps the error goes deeper. The hardest thing to do in politics is to think like an outsider when you've become an insider. Maybe the fat lobbying and consulting contracts have blinded the Clintons' advisers to the thinking of the Democratic Party base. Perhaps they and their candidate have gone Washington and can't appreciate, as easily as Obama can, what their constituents are thinking.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/08/clintons_campaign_commits_bigt.html

[red states rule]

So Much for the Clinton-Obama Ticket
by Steve Kornacki

Published: July 27, 2007

Tags: Arts & Culture, Opinion, Politics, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton

Hillary Clinton called Barack Obama “irresponsible and frankly naïve,” Barack Obama fired back that electing Hillary Clinton could mean “continuing with Bush-Cheney policies,” and finally Hillary Clinton asked, “What’s ever happened to the politics of hope?”

So went the first full-throttle front-runners’ spat in the Democratic race, and among the many consequences of the earlier-than-expected (and Hillary-instigated) sniping should be the muting of talk of a Clinton-Obama ticket.

On paper, such a pairing would be the perfect recipe for a party hungry to win back the White House and too keep it for some time, with the youthful Mr. Obama lending his irresistible personality to a ticket led by the more experienced but less warm Mrs. Clinton. Then, after helping Mrs. Clinton win in 2008 (and, for the sake of this scenario, 2012 as well) Vice-President Obama would be clear to seek the presidency on his own, untroubled by suggestions that he’s too green for the national and international stage.

From a strategic standpoint, the Clinton campaign may regret throwing the first punch this week, since doing so gave the lagging Mr. Obama an opening to define his candidacy against Mrs. Clinton’s in more specific terms; previously, the prevailing Clinton ploy had been to mute issue differences with Mr. Obama and to assert simply that Mrs. Clinton is the more seasoned and inevitable choice.

But even if Mrs. Clinton now reverts to holding her fire, this week’s flare-up hints at very real tension not just between the two front-runners’ campaigns but between the candidates themselves. And that, in turn, suggests that Mrs. Clinton, should she ultimately secure the nomination, will be inclined to thumb her nose at any pressure from within the party to tap Mr. Obama as her running-mate. (There is no serious thought that Mr. Obama, if he were to win, would face similar pressure to fill out his ticket with Mrs. Clinton.)

Yes, the history of national ticket match-making is peppered with former rivals–sometimes bitter rivals–teaming up.

Most famously, there was Ronald Reagan’s selection of George H.W. Bush in 1980 – after Mr. Bush had spent the primary season deriding Reagan’s supply side economic prescriptions as “voodoo economics.” (And before turning to Mr. Bush, Reagan very nearly tapped the same Gerald Ford whom he had unsuccessfully challenged–but fatally roughed up–in the 1976 GOP primaries.)

There was also the “Boston-Austin” teaming of John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson in 1960, consecrated after Johnson had ridiculed Kennedy, who suffered from Addison’s Disease and chronic back problems, as a ''little scrawny fellow with rickets.” And, of course, there was 2004, when John Kerry was talked into choosing John Edwards, who, sensing it might come to that, had bent over backwards not to attack Mr. Kerry too harshly during the Democratic primaries. (And lest we forget Bob Dole’s selection in 1996 of Jack Kemp, with whom he had competed for the 1988 GOP nomination, when Mr. Kemp charged that Mr. Dole “never met a tax he didn’t hike.”)

But there was a common bond in all of those cases: Each of those presidential nominees, at the time of their party convention, did not have the standing to tell the powerful voices whispering in their ears to go screw.

Reagan, for instance, was still seen as too radical for the general election and was already facing the threat of a splintered GOP with the independent candidacy of John B. Anderson. To reassure moderates and independents in the fall and to keep his party’s own centrist forces from siding with Mr. Anderson, Reagan faced enormous pressure to tap an establishment-friendly face for his ticket. Mr. Bush, an Eastern Establishment figure who had run sharply to Reagan’s left in the primaries, fit the bill nicely.

Similarly, Kennedy won a first ballot victory at the 1960 Democratic convention, but his Catholicism and Boston accent stoked fears within the party that he’d be electoral poison in the pivotal South, a region that had yet to embrace the GOP. Kennedy ended up carrying Texas and its 24 electoral votes by 40,000 votes in the fall, along with a handful of other southern states – success that owed itself to Johnson, who was loathed by Kennedy’s trusted brother and campaign chief Bobby.

Even Mr. Kerry in ’04 clearly preferred a different V.P. choice – Richard Gephardt, specifically – that the one that his party’s major donors (and even a good chunk of its grassroots base) preferred. But the circumstances of Mr. Kerry nomination and the nature of the fall election – Democrats, in an utterly unprecedented way, called off their infighting in the primary season and rallied behind Mr. Kerry early, believing him to be the safest choice to oppose the despised President Bush in the fall – made the Massachusetts Senator unusually subservient to the will of his party’s influential voices. The party faithful badly wanted John Edwards on the ticket in ’04 and Mr. Kerry didn’t want – and couldn’t afford – to disappoint them.

But Mrs. Clinton figures to enjoy much more latitude than Reagan, Kennedy or even John Kerry had.

Mrs. Clinton is already tending rather effectively to her party’s vast network of interest groups and single-issue constituencies, and so – unlike Reagan – she won’t need to mollify one particular camp with her VP pick. And unlike Mr. Kerry, the supposedly inoffensive vessel for his party’s hopes, Mrs. Clinton is a high-wattage political celebrity, a (prospective) nominee who would be able to call her own shots in a way Mr. Kerry couldn’t.

Sure, the Democrats will be just as hungry for victory in 2008 as they were four years ago, but the climate has shifted dramatically in their favor. Whereas the country was evenly divided throughout the ’04 campaign, polls now consistently give a generic Democrat a double-digit edge over a generic Republican. If she wins the nomination, Mrs. Clinton will not face the same fatalistic, you’d-better-pick-this-VP-or-we’re-doomed-in-the-fall pressure that Mr. Kerry did.

All of this means that, if nominated, Mrs. Clinton will have the standing to spurn Democratic match-makers who might plead with her to choose Mr. Obama. In essence, she would have unusual license to consider what’s best for January 2009 – and not November 2008 – in making her call. And if that’s her primary consideration, then, as this week showed, Barack Obama shouldn’t be expecting any phone calls from Hillary Clinton come next summer.

http://www.observer.com/2007/so-much-clinton-obama-ticket

[red states rule]

Huffington: Hillary 'Swiftboated' Obama
By Mark Finkelstein | August 1, 2007 - 08:26 ET
Don't look for Arianna Huffington to be sitting down to a chummy luncheon with Hillary Clinton anytime soon. Huffington has been no fan of Clinton for some time, considering her insufficiently, and inauthentically, anti-war. But on today's "Morning Joe," Huffington took her animus to another level, accusing Hillary of an ultimate Dem sin: "swiftboating" an opponent, namely Barack Obama.


HUFFINGTON POST FOUNDER ARIANNA HUFFINGTON: After the CNN debate, I think it was ridiculous the way she and her campaign attacked Obama for saying he would engage in diplomatic talks with dictators. That is sort of a classic example of swiftboating your opponent. Like the equivalent of what Republicans do anytime Democrats call for troop withdrawal and they are talking about "cutting and running" or "precipitous withdrawal" or any of the clever little phrases.

View video here.

Animosity does have its limits, though. Responding to a question from panelist Craig Crawford, Huffington stated that notwithstanding her distaste for Hillary, she would vote for her against Rudy Giuliani, snidely stammering "or any of the other candidates who don't believe in evolution." "Other" candidates who reject evolution? Rudy never has, but Arianna won't let a logical fallacy stand in the way of a swipe at those hated Republicans.

View video here.

It wasn't an entirely comfortable appearance for Arianna. Host Joe Scarborough confronted her with the op-ed appearing in yesterday's New York Times by Michael O'Hanlon and Kenneth Pollack, "A War We Just Might Win."



HUFFINGTON, disdainfully: This is really pathetic. This is just preparation for General Petraeus' visit to the Hill.

SCARBOROUGH: You know Arianna, there have been pathetic defenses of this war from time to time. But these two gentlemen are from the Brookings [Institution], an organization that nobody has ever accused of being packed with neo-cons, and these two gentlemen have been harshly critical of the Bush administration from time to time throughout the war.

HUFFINGTON, sputtering: Yes, but this is one set of opinions, and needs to be put against the, um, sort of majority of opinion from experts on the ground.

How would Huffington seek to dismiss the conclusions of the New York Times' respected Baghdad bureau chief John Burns? He recently told Hugh Hewitt in an extended interview that "there's no doubt that those extra 30,000 American troops are making a difference."

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/mark-finkelstein/2007/08/01/huffington-hillary-swiftboated-obama

[actsnoblemartin]

Data (from star trek). They both act like robots, and have no clue how to lead.

[glockmail]

The best part about a Hillary presidency will be watching the right-wing wacko men make Number Two in their pants,.

Then they'll go home and demand of their wives, "Did you vote for her?"

Big trouble on the conservative reservation......

:dance::salute::dance:


Per your usual, you failed to man-up and answer a simple, direct question.

[red states rule]

Per your usual, you failed to man-up and answer a simple, direct question.

I keep hoping there will be a first time

[glockmail]

I keep hoping there will be a first time GW is so typical of liberals. He wants us all to know his opinion but he can't defend it.

[red states rule]

GW is so typical of liberals. He wants us all to know his opinion but he can't defend it.

Is he running for public office?

He passed his first test to get the backing of the Dem party

[glockmail]

Is he running for public office?

He passed his first test to get the backing of the Dem party The only ones who would "back" him entertain sheep the same way.

[red states rule]

The only ones who would "back" him entertain sheep the same way.

The liberal convoy just took a direct hit :lol:

[nevadamedic]

The only ones who would "back" him entertain sheep the same way.

:laugh2:

[red states rule]

:laugh2:

I had to rep him for that one

[red states rule]

Hillary defends lobbyists, opens doors for rivals

By: Ben Smith
Aug 4, 2007 06:59 PM EST

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton offered an unusual defense (video link courtesy Breitbart.tv) of a hated Washington insider caste -- lobbyists -- before an audience of political outsiders in Chicago Saturday, drawing boos from the audience at the YearlyKos Convention and offering an opening to her rivals.

“A lot of those lobbyists, whether you like it or not, represent real Americans,” the New York senator said in defense of her decision to accept campaign contributions from lobbyists. “They represent nurses, they represent social workers, yes, they represent corporations that employ a lot of people.”

“I don’t think, based on my 35 years of fighting for what I believe in, I don’t think anybody seriously believes I’m going to be influenced by a lobbyist,” Clinton said.

Clinton spoke in response to a challenge from former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards to his Democratic rivals to stop taking contributions from federal lobbyists.

It was a popular suggestion at a convention of bloggers and liberal activists for whom the central conflict, Daily Kos blog founder Markos Moulitsas Zuniga told reporters, is less ideological than between insiders and outsiders -- between those who the Netroots believe too readily accommodated President Bush and those willing to fight him and Washington's entrenched interests.

Clinton’s defense of lobbyists may have aimed at adding nuance to a debate in which Edwards and Illinois Sen. Barack Obama have cast federal lobbyists as dangerous influence peddlers while continuing to take money from corporate executives and state lobbyists.

But instead, it seemed to solidify the perception of Clinton as a Washington establishment figure in a year when Democrats are eager for change (Roger Simon has a different view). Her words drew jeers from the audience and invited sharp responses from Edwards and Obama.

“They are not spending that just because they are contributing to the public interest,” Obama said of the health care lobby, a sarcastic rejoinder to Clinton that brought the crowd of about 1,000 bloggers and liberal activists to their feet.

Edwards asked, mockingly, for a show of hands.

“How many people in this room have a Washington lobbyist working for you?” he asked.

Asked after the debate about Clinton’s kind words for lobbyists, her chief spokesman, Howard Wolfson, didn’t echo the defense but instead noted that Obama and Edwards each take other forms of corporate money.

“Every campaign will make a different decision. We made ours,” he said, noting that Clinton -- like the other Democrats -- supports public financing for presidential campaigns.

Obama’s advisers, however, were jubilant, joking with reporters about how quickly they would be able to turn her words into a television ad.

“I can’t say I’ve ever heard a more fulsome defense of lobbyists before,” deadpanned Obama’s main adviser, David Axelrod. “It certainly stood out.”

Those candidates, along with Connecticut Sen. Chris Dodd, New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, Ohio Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich and former Alaska Sen. Mike Gravel, met at the Chicago Convention Center for the second-annual YearlyKos Convention of the community that has evolved around the liberal blog Daily Kos. Much of the passion in the debate, and at the conference, turned on domestic and local issues, and on issues of specific importance to bloggers.

Dodd, for instance, drew applause for attacking Fox News and the chief of its parent company, Rupert Murdoch. And the candidates won applause for promising to retain a blogger in the White House.

But the debate wended along largely familiar lines until moderator Matt Bai raised Edwards’ challenge to the other candidates and the Democratic Party to reject contributions from “Washington lobbyists,” a broad group increasingly viewed as powerful and corrupt in the wake of the corruption conviction of superlobbyist Jack Abramoff.

He cast his refusal to take lobbyists’ donations as part of his broader fight against “special interests.”

“They are not going to give away their power voluntarily,” he said of American corporations, and he praised Obama for also refusing to take money from lobbyists.

“I’m proud of him for that,” he said of Obama.

Clinton's defensive response was met immediately on the Daily Kos comments thread with derision.

“Yikes, Clinton’s lobbyist answer was ugly,” one commenter wrote under the name “speck tater.”

“Just what America longs for -- business as usual in Washington, D.C.,” wrote another under the name Joe McGinniss Jr.

Clinton did have her blogospheric defenders, including one writing under the name “prodigal.”

“Don't entirely agree with her, but she's gutsy,” the commenter wrote.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0807/5251.html

[bluestatesrule]

Red states rules...also predicted to me several times last fall that the democrats would not ride to a big victory....that all of the hype leading up to the last election was being "driven" by the "drive by media". Do not let Red State Rules put any spin on this...he did predict that not only Republicans would not lose big (as they surely did)....but they would actually pick up some seats. He did make those predictions. My whole point being this....it is still to early. Several conservative callers took Rush to task...for origionally predicting Hiliary would not run for the Senate...and she did...then he predicted she would not win....well she did. And won reelection...the fact that red state had to do a post saying not to worry about Hilliary...means that there are some poeple worried about Hilliary. She has proven to be a far tougher bird than people thought. Do not underestimate her. Not that I am a big fan. I just respect her.

[red states rule]

Red states rules...also predicted to me several times last fall that the democrats would not ride to a big victory....that all of the hype leading up to the last election was being "driven" by the "drive by media". Do not let Red State Rules put any spin on this...he did predict that not only Republicans would not lose big (as they surely did)....but they would actually pick up some seats. He did make those predictions. My whole point being this....it is still to early. Several conservative callers took Rush to task...for origionally predicting Hiliary would not run for the Senate...and she did...then he predicted she would not win....well she did. And won reelection...the fact that red state had to do a post saying not to worry about Hilliary...means that there are some poeple worried about Hilliary. She has proven to be a far tougher bird than people thought. Do not underestimate her. Not that I am a big fan. I just respect her.

Do you bother to read the polls that go against your hopes and dreams?

More the 50% of the voters will not vote for Hillary. The Electoral College is going against her

and the Dem Congress has set record all time lows - lower then what the Republicans had when they were tossed out of office

[bluestatesrule]

Still dodging the fact that you were wrong last fall.....and you may be wrong in 2008.

[red states rule]

Still dodging the fact that you were wrong last fall.....and you may be wrong in 2008.

But I was right on the previous three

You are 1 - 4

I am 1 - 3

Hillary will not win a national election. The south and mid west will still be solid red state country

[red states rule]

Red states rules...also predicted to me several times last fall that the democrats would not ride to a big victory....that all of the hype leading up to the last election was being "driven" by the "drive by media". Do not let Red State Rules put any spin on this...he did predict that not only Republicans would not lose big (as they surely did)....but they would actually pick up some seats. He did make those predictions. My whole point being this....it is still to early. Several conservative callers took Rush to task...for origionally predicting Hiliary would not run for the Senate...and she did...then he predicted she would not win....well she did. And won reelection...the fact that red state had to do a post saying not to worry about Hilliary...means that there are some poeple worried about Hilliary. She has proven to be a far tougher bird than people thought. Do not underestimate her. Not that I am a big fan. I just respect her.

Do you actually want Hillary as President BSR?

She is the one who put napalm scented air fresheners in the WH during the 8 years of Bill

[actsnoblemartin]

Osama Bin Laden is more electable then hillary clinton :laugh2:

[red states rule]

Osama Bin Laden is more electable then hillary clinton :laugh2:

If he were running agaisnt the Republican, some libs would still vote for him

Remember, to some on the kook left, OBL was not behind 9-11, Pres Bush was