Hillary can't play the "Change" card. She has been in the national spotlight for 16 years, and for those of us on the right, it seems like 96 years. Obama only launched himself into prominence three and a half years ago at the Democrat convention. He's still fresh. One of the talking heads on CNN pointed out that Obama was surrounded by youth and vitality during his victory speech; by contrast, Hillary was flanked by her husband and Madeline Allbright during her speech. Before last night I thought Obama had a 25% shot at beating Hillary. Now I think he's favorite to win not only his party's nomination, but the whole thing. It wasn't just his victory last night, it was his speech afterwards. Sure, it was filled with cliches and platitudes, but it was terrific all the same. I found myself enthused by it, even though I disagree with him on pretty much everything. Some of his comments on international issues have been alarming, but I won't lose any sleep over the prospect of him winning in November. It's impossible to dislike Obama; and impossible to like Hillary.
docjim505
· 1 year ago
infidel65: Some of his [Obama's] comments on international issues have been alarming, but I won't lose any sleep over the prospect of him winning in November. It's impossible to dislike Obama; and impossible to like Hillary.
I agree. The Dope seems like, well, a dope, but he's a likable dope. The idea of him being loose in the White House doesn't fill me with glee, but at least it doesn't fill me with horror, either. IF he can demonstrate that he's not just an empty suit, he's got a good shot at winning the whole thing. While we may lament it, likability is an important - perhaps THE most important - thing for a presidential candidate.
MarkJ
· 1 year ago
Just what we need: a "likeable dope" in the White House. Dare we ask if Obama has taken even a moment to consider that the enemy will also have a "vote" in the upcoming election?
I'll tell you what Al Qaeda sees in Barack Obama: they see a useful idiot and a complete pushover.
If, or when, Obama gets the nomination, possibly the most devastating thing his Republican debate opponent will throw at him is, "Yes, it's very nice to talk about change and 'moral standing.' However, what's your Plan B if Al Qaeda doesn't buy in to your program?"
Brian Pendell
· 1 year ago
My thoughts. Obama to win the whole thing. Why?
1) I don't think the Republicans have a chance of winning this year. While the surge has produced some amazing dividends, the fact remains that we're still fighting a war lots of the American people wanted to have over in 2003.
Besides which, the Reps spent most of last year kicking the Hispanic community in the teeth with the immigration issue. Remember that Bush won in 2000 because he carried Florida ... which had just experienced Elian Gonzalez? Now the shoe's on the other foot. I think we'll lose Florida, and with it just about every state except the Heartland and Alaska.
If we're going to be forced to have a Democrat in 2008, of all the ones I'd choose, I'd choose Obama. We've seen the Clinton's record in Somalia, and Edwards comes across as used-car salesman. He can't win the general election. Obama *might*.
The problem here is that I'm afraid he'll try a very premature withdrawal strategy, which will unleash a terrorist Hell in Iraq. Not just there, but everywhere else in the world when people realize that you don't have to beat the US on the battlefield ... you just have to outlast them.
In my lifetime, the US has retreated from Vietnam, Lebanon, Somalia. Iraq will probably cement our reputation as a giant with great strength but no endurance. You can kiss goodbye any initiative to bring freedom to any part of the world. Both the terrorists and the democrats will know better to depend on us.
The bottom line is that, unless God touches Obama's heart and convinces him to build democracy in Iraq rather than abandoning them to religious theocracy or thuggish dictatorship, we've got until January 2009 to get Iraq functioning on it's own. On Inauguration day 2009 the fledgling will be kicked from the nest, like it or not, and if it fails things will only get worse for us.
Respectfully,
Brian P.
KathyfromAustin
· 1 year ago
Boy, Brian do I ever agree with you. To me, this election is all about Iraq and the war on terror. It would be a disaster for country and the free world if we prematurely run from Iraq. Not to mention that we have an absolute moral imperative to finish the job there and in Afghanistan. To leave before their countries are able to stand on their own would purposefully turn them over to the tender mercies of al Queda. That is simply unacceptable to me.
It is too easy for many Democrats (and yes, some Republicans) to sit in the comfort of their home, secure in their own freedom to cast aside the Iraqi citizen. I just cannot conceive of that lack of compassion or ethics.
That is why this issue is my overriding priority in 2008.
mmebrady
· 1 year ago
I am not a fan of either Obama or Clinton, but I do agree with much of what you said. Just be careful -- likeablility does not a leader make. Cliches and platitudes will not hold water down the road.
patrickneid
· 1 year ago
Obama should enjoy this while it lasts.
I'm sure some folks around him know what is coming. The Clinton machine is the most ruthless bloodthirsty enterprise that has metastasized since Tammany Hall. Unlike most they have been in business almost twenty years. Prisons are littered with their minions--even graveyards have picked up a suspicious few.
When they get done with him he won't even know who his wife is. Will any of the accusations be true? Of course not. But a vote here, a vote there and the white trash are back in the White House.
My only hope, and it is extremely thin, is that the "ruthlessness" will be her undoing and the electorate will see it for what it is. My fear, however, is that an electorate that can over look Bill's life of debauchery and misogyny will take her "lying ways" right in stride. We have some posters here who are perfect examples of the Faustian bargain they are willing to make where the 'end justifies the means'.
docjim505
· 1 year ago
"We’re going to continue to make the case that in these serious times when America faces big challenges, it will take a leader with Hillary’s strength and experience to deliver real change," the talking points say.
What "strength"? The "strength" that had her complaining about being picked on because she's a woman when Rick Lazio DARED to walk across the stage to her? Or when she again played the helpwess widdle woman card when mean ol' Tim Russert DARED to ask her a question about illegal immigrants and drivers licences? The "strength" that has her running to Slick every time she flounders (which is to say, about once each week; gotta put a crimp in his love life)? For that matter, the "strength" that had her stick with that philandering bastard when his extramarital affairs were exposed for the entire world to see? The "strength" that causes her to fabricate stories about herself, ranging from "I was named for a man who wasn't famous until several years after I was born" to "The Apollo program inspired me to, um, to... er... Get into politics" to "I go where the danger is!"? The "strength" that led her to dig through Obama's GRAMMAR SCHOOL records to try to get some dirt on him?
She's not "strong" at all. Rather, she's a grasping shrew who seems to believe that the White House is hers by some divine right because she's smarter than the rest of us... and because she put up with Slick's crap for all these years.
Oh, she makes me sooooo f***ing sick. She really does.
I've written several times that I'll never vote for John McCain this side of hell. This is not true. If the Hilldabeast is the nominee for the despicable dems, I will crawl naked over broken glass to trip the lever for McCain. I'd hate myself in the morning, but I'd do it.
God save the United States from this disgusting woman.
SwabJockey05
· 1 year ago
Dr J. Apparently, the Dhimmis think there aren't many people like you and I (willing to do almost ANYTHING to beat back the Hildabeast). Otherwise, how can you explain the fact that she's still there leading candidate (at least Nationally)?
They know she's polarizing...yet they still parade her about...like a freak at the circus. How long before they have her biting the heads off pigeons?
docjim505
· 1 year ago
SwabJockey,
Partisanship is a powerful influence. For example, I can't understand why the libs hate George Bush as much as they do, and I'm sure that they can't understand why I and EVERYBODY else wasn't willing to do almost anything to keep him from being reelected back in '04.
That being said, I sometimes wonder if the average dem REALLY likes Hillary, or if they just sort of support her because she's their "top" candidate. I have yet to see anybody, even the most rabid of our resident lefties, tell us why they like Hillary; usually, the best they can do is sputter that they hate Bush (like we didn't already know that) and that "Republicans do it, too!" anytime the Hilldabeast does something unethical / questionable / despicable.
Larry
· 1 year ago
BDS is caused by a significant chunk of the Dems being in denial about the jihadist threat. Sen. Lieberman gets the same rage, for the same reason. To wit: he won't pretend that there is no threat, which confronts their delusion.
Hillary has had high negatives even in her own party for quite a while.
Del_Dolemonte
· 1 year ago
They're also still in denial about the 2000 election. Even when you try to point out that Gore would never have needed to win Florida to capture the White House, simply by getting the people of his own home state of Tennessee to vote for him, they still cry that Bush had the Supreme Court hand the election to him. And when you mention that had Gore previaled that he would have been the first-ever President "appointed" by TWO Supreme Courts, they go silent.
Teresa
· 1 year ago
For once I agree with Del. I for one hated GWB well before 9/11.
Del_Dolemonte
· 1 year ago
But you say above that I'm always wrong, which means you're in the same boat.
Teresa
· 1 year ago
Even a stopped clock is right two times a day! ;)
jr565
· 1 year ago
not a stopped digital clock. usually those have either no numbers on them because there is no power, or they look wonky like some weird computer code, or the numbers on the cover of the Police Ghost in the Machine album. So the libs are like stopped digital clocks. Either they are completely vacuos or speaking in code which makes questions of rights and wrong immaterial.
Del_Dolemonte
· 1 year ago
Hey, I am still waiting for you to back up your claim-before Iowa, by the way-that the mainstream media is giving Hillary more negative coverage than the other candidates. When I posted a URL showing a Repub getting much worse coverage, you left the room and never came back.
wheres_waldo
· 1 year ago
Yep, I would vote for anybody, even Rudy, to keep her out of the White House. If he wins I will much less motivated to vote for Rudy.
Del_Dolemonte
· 1 year ago
I'm registered here in New Hampshire as an Independent, which means that in our upcoming Primary I can vote for either a Democrat candidate or a Republican candidate.
I am going to get a Democrat ballot, and either vote for Obama or write in Joe Lieberman-just to deny Hillary a vote.
SEW
· 1 year ago
I'll vote for any Republican before the Big H. Unless Ron Paul wins, then I'll flip a coin or stay home.
mmebrady
· 1 year ago
you mean in public??? oops...that wasn't nice... ;)
hunter_123
· 1 year ago
5.
unclesmrgol
· 1 year ago
I do think the alternative is worse. Imagine President Obama. At least Hillary is willing to keep the troops in Iraq to finish the job. I detest the woman, but her politics are a lot closer to mine than those of Obama. With both we get pro-choice slavery, racial politics, and a huge deficit (Obama didn't label his Christmas gifts, but from his website, we have a good idea of their cost). But with Hillary, at least, we get a continuation of the war on terror, rather than a retreat which will have Al Qaeda crowing about how a bloody nose sends the Americans scurrying. Then we will have to do the Iraq thing all over again somewhere else.
NoDonkey
· 1 year ago
Obama will say what he needs to do in order to get elected. He's a Democrat.
IF he gets elected, he'll have to think about getting re-elected. Reproducing Saigon might quicken the heart of the lunatic Democrat base and their geriatric hippie contingent, but it's not going to engender confidence in the general electorate.
He'll evaluate the options and realize he won't be able to keep his promise regarding a pullout from Iraq. His lunatic base won't go Republican in 2012 and by then, it will be old news.
unclesmrgol
· 1 year ago
So we have here, in your eyes, a simple case of a politician lying to get votes. Doesn't give us the warm and fuzzy about any of Obama's other pronouncements, does it?
NoDonkey
· 1 year ago
Oh of course not.
But he's a Democrat. That's their party and that's what they do.
At least he'll have a new crop of incompetents and we won't have to hear Madelaine Albright babbling again.
unclesmrgol
· 1 year ago
No, we'll just have to listen to a Madelaine Albright doppleganger.
Speaking of exactly that, what happened to Kucinich? Do you think his people will now go for Obama in every state?
jr565
· 1 year ago
The problem with this is Bush only controls the war till the end of his term. Once the next president comes into play it get shoved onto his plate and, like it or not, he will suffer the consequences were it to fall apart under his watch if we pull out. And likewise if he decides to stick it out and keep the troops in he will alienate his kooky base who will recognize that he was a huckster all along as he promised ichange and didnt deliver.
J. Zervos
· 1 year ago
At the last debate, Obama also said that he would keep troops in Iraq. All three of them, dandy Eddie, HillBill and Barack baby were ready to cut and run, sell the troops out for a few votes in "06 only to bactrack in the last debate after the election.
As no donkey says Obama will say anything to get elected. He's a democrat. But at this point at least he is not blaming the vast right wing and now the MSM for any expression of criticism against him.
The Clintonistas with their everyone is to blame but us mentality are like the sound of fingernails scratching a chalkbaord.
JonPrichard
· 1 year ago
That's a beautiful riff...I mean really. Thanks!
gaffo
· 1 year ago
"I've written several times that I'll never vote for John McCain this side of hell. This is not true. If the Hilldabeast is the nominee for the despicable dems, I will crawl naked over broken glass to trip the lever for McCain. I'd hate myself in the morning, but I'd do it.
God save the United States from this disgusting woman."
LOL.......I feel the same way from the other side of the aisle. and though since McCain has been kissing the JR's ass the last two years I've come to loathe McCain.............I will join you in voting for him if that is my duty to prevent that pandering women from the Presidency.
America cannnot live through 8 more years of amoral leadership.
Will Cate
· 1 year ago
Ditto, docjim.... right there with ya, man
Fight4TheRight
· 1 year ago
I don't know, Hillary's response to all of this might be right on target. I mean, if there truly are enough Socialist sheep out there like Teresa, Hillary should be able to offer up any strategies and bounce right back. I do have to say I'm eager for the South Carolina to arrive - it seems forever since I've seen Hillary's impression of Cynthia McKinney.
quickjustice
· 1 year ago
Bloomberg is preparing his self-financed campaign as we speak. He figures there's an opening between a radical, left-wing Obama, and a radical, evangelical populist like Huckabee.
Bloomberg is a Hillary (liberal) Democrat without Hillary's baggage. He could do well.
NoDonkey
· 1 year ago
Nurse Bloomberg? I hope he runs.
Would bring out the suckle staters. A national nanny in your kitchen to tell you what to eat and lead you in jumping jacks afterwards.
Or else.
Mwalimu_Daudi
· 1 year ago
Interesting. The Clintons are very big into revenge. If Hilly the Hun lost the nomination to Obama (which I doubt will happen), would Clinton Inc. help out Bloomberg as payback?
quickjustice
· 1 year ago
Bloomberg has been very friendly to the Clintons here in N.Y., as has Rupert Murdoch. It wouldn't surprise me if they unofficially backed him.
infidel65
· 1 year ago
I think too much is made of experience. Bill Richardson has more foreign policy experience than any other candidate on the Democrat side, and he's been saying some amazingly stupid things, especially since the assassination of Benazir Bhutto last week. Jimmy Carter has VAST experience of international affairs. Need I say more?
MrLynn
· 1 year ago
Good point. What's really important is not 'experience', but understanding. None of the Democrats display the slightest understanding of the current state of foreign affairs, not even the self-touted marathon talker (and now former candidate) Sen. Biden. The Republicans, by and large, are better grounded in reality; in my view, Fred Thompson has the firmest grasp on the issues, notwithstanding the experience of Sen. McCain.
/Mr Lynn
TerryGain
· 1 year ago
I don't have any particular animus towards Obama and I have a strong dislike for Clinton and what she stands for but I wouldn't make too much of the results in Iowa.
I thought Obama's speech last night was one of the worst political speeches I have ever heard. It was one short cliche after another and most of them contradictory such as leaving Iraq (where al Qaeda is taking a shit -kicking) and fighting the war on terror.
Clinton of course can point out the contradictions in his foreign policy but she can't do so wiithout drawing attention to her own.
The Democrat Party field is the worst I can remember in my 60 years. Edwards wants to wage a class war, Clinton wants a gender war (the whole world's watching) and Obama wants to wage a war on the America that produced him and his campaign. He's right that America does need change if someone with a resume as thin as his, and someone so cluelessly naive about the war declared on America, can be taken seriously.
UncleAl
· 1 year ago
According to Ellen Goodman, the Dem field is an embarrassment of riches while the Rep field is just an embarrassment. Obama was just echoing the line that the war in Iraq has been a terrible distraction from the real war on terror. I think the anti-war Dems agree with him.
NoDonkey
· 1 year ago
"According to Ellen Goodman"
Reading anything written by Ellen Goodman is never a good idea.
"the Dem field is an embarrassment of riches"
As far as "wealth" is concerned, she is correct. Clinton and Edwards are loaded. We can all agree on that.
As far as qualities one would expect a President to have (experience, knowledge, character), the Dem field is sleeping on sewer grates and bumming spare change.
gaffo
· 1 year ago
"As far as qualities one would expect a President to have (experience, knowledge, character), the Dem field is sleeping on sewer grates and bumming spare change."
telling that you neglect the most important quality: JUDGEMENT (i.e. common sense).
of the three qualities you mention Obama has two:
and he apears to have the one I mention as well.
....................
how many does bush have?
experience? - yes, he was a Governor and lived a few miles from me in the mid 90's. And jogged at Townlake - never saw him, but did see his "opponent" Richards out there several times.
Knowledge - HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!........Obama could run circle around Bush on that one!
character - ................well.............not from what I can see - but maybe you can see some where I cannot WRT Bush.
So (giving the benefit of the doubt and assuming JR has "character" we have a........................
TIE: both Jr and Obama have 2 or the three qualities you value so much!
BUT only ONE HAS THE QUALITY I VALUE - COMMON SENSE!
that it ain't Bush Jr - how whimsickly went to war out of choice and without a plan to leave nor a plan to creat a new Iraq.
Bush is a MORON - and morons lack judgement.
........do you lack judgement Dockey?
Jamie
· 1 year ago
Er...<whisper> Bush isn't running.</whisper>/
jr565
· 1 year ago
so they are suggesting that we escalate in Afghanistan? Great, so when are all the dems going to be joining the army,because if they are for war and don't serve wouldn't that make them chicken hawks? My point of course is that this is not a real position in favor of actually doing something related to a war on terror. Rather, its is a distraction from having to come up with actual policies on the war on terror. We all know that no democrat is going to suggest we move our troops from Iraq and into afghanistan and run the risk of dealing with the quagmire there. What if it increases terrorism, war is bad, people will die, there will be quagmires, and it will cost money and time and setbacks, none of which the dems will stomach. So I will say that the dems suggestion that we withdraw on Iraq is a distraction from the real war on terror, a war on terror that they just don't want to fight.
howardlohmuller
· 1 year ago
There may come a time in her campaign, probably after the big primaries in the next month, when Senator Clinton takes a long hard look at the pile of money her campaign has raised. She may decide to throw in the towel early if her inevitability vanishes in order to sit on the money and garnish whatever political power she can muster from her N.Y. Senate seat. She has remade herself for this campaign, but all through her career her greed has shown through.
Swede
· 1 year ago
She lost to John Edwards.
John Edwards.
Think about that.
Lightwave
· 1 year ago
I still think both conventions will be brokered. The Clinton machine is too powerful for the Dems to ignore to have a chance in 2008. As the "quagmire in Iraq" continues to lead to major AQ losses in Iraq and the "coming recession" fails to materialize, Obama's message will fall increasingly flat. The Dems will go negative, and that means they will have to go with Hillary. Obama doesn't have the legs to go up against both the Clinton apparatus and the GOP. He'll stumble at some point and when he does, Hillary will be waiting. She won't quit and if she does well enough in NH and Feb 5, she's right back in this. Edwards is out of money, the Haircut is finished. We'll see a Hillary-Obama ticket.
On the other side of the coin, this is now John McCain's turn to shine. If McCain can win NH, then I think an awful lot of folks will get behind him as the alternative to Huckabee. I still think in the end it's McCain-Romney or even McCain-Thompson to cement the deal.
Remember, Reagan lost Iowa in 1980 to Bush Senior. He won in NH and was the comeback kid, but Bush earned himself a VP slot with Iowa.
And a McCain - Clinton contest WILL keep a Republican in the White House. The political landscape is going to change greatly over the next few months.
hunter_123
· 1 year ago
Good observation. Both parties are stale and fragile. But I think the way Republicans may act out that staleness is by massively going for Huckabee. The Clinton/Tammany Hall machine is going to seek to clamp Obama down pretty harshly and very soon.
BurfordHolly
· 1 year ago
...........And in losing, HRC still got twice as many votes as Huck.
Think about that !
Sheik Yur Bouty
· 1 year ago
I see you have your KOS talking points for the day!
It's an apples and oranges comparison due to the way each party caucases in Iowa.
Nice try, though.
NoDonkey
· 1 year ago
Wow - in a liberal state, more liberals went to the polls. Stop the presses.
Besides, if you exclude the illegal immigrant vote, the phony votes, the comatose votes, the deceased vote and the family dog vote Democrats clean up on, it was probably fairly even.
Teresa
· 1 year ago
Iowa is a liberal state? That's news to GWB who won there in 2004.
NoDonkey
· 1 year ago
That's because people who have something called a "job" (they tend to break for Republicans, you see), have a lot easier time voting in the general election than they do in the Iowa caucus.
Whereas those unfortunate wretches who can't work for whatever pathetic reason, have oodles of time to waste on these silly caucuses, in the hope that some billionaire jackass like John Edwards, Hillary Clinton or George Soros will hand them a sack of gold and their dreams will all come true.
Bush barely beat Kerry in 2004 because even a good percentage of liberals were smart enough to see what a complete and utter incompetent fraud Kerry was. It'll hold true on the way to the Republicans trouncing the Dems crappy 2008 candidate.
BurfordHolly
· 1 year ago
Did HRC get all the illegal Mexicans, dead people, and dead Mexicans, or did the Dems split the dead Mexican vote 3 ways?
NoDonkey
· 1 year ago
Dead Mexican dogs broke for Obama, 2-1 and played a key part in his big victory last night.
Teresa
· 1 year ago
No Donkey says, "Whereas those unfortunate wretches who can't work for whatever pathetic reason, have oodles of time to waste on these silly caucuses, in the hope that some billionaire jackass like John Edwards, Hillary Clinton or George Soros will hand them a sack of gold and their dreams will all come true. "
But apparently they have the good sense to vote AGAINST a billionaire jackass like Mitt Romney. GO IOWA!
NoDonkey
· 1 year ago
Not to mention a billionaire jackass like Hillary.
Del_Dolemonte
· 1 year ago
Mitt's no "billionaire". His net worth is between $190 and $250 mil.
Hillary has a net worth of almost $40 mil, most of which has been made in the past 7 years.
Teresa
· 1 year ago
So NoDonkey was wrong about everyone's net worth. Go figure. The Mittster sure managed to blow through a big chunk of Tagg's inheritence though didn't he?
jr565
· 1 year ago
Again, its one of 50 states each with its own caucus. And romney was a succesful businessman, ran Boston and ran the olympics, so I'm sure along the way he was able to get some money of his own that he can spend. How many companies has Obama run again? What exactly has he done other than mpress oprah? Boy are your arguments tired.
jr565
· 1 year ago
and by the way, didn't Kerry win Iowa? don't remember any presidents named Kerry. I do remmber a Kerry who siad he was reporting for duty, and had something to do with a Heinz ketchup bottle though. Oh and he looked a bit like Lurch, only more gangly. Whatever happened to that guy? He was really swell.
gaffo
· 1 year ago
"It'll hold true on the way to the Republicans trouncing the Dems crappy 2008 candidate."
Gotta love the fear - I can smell it from here Donkey.
here's a clue, clueless: Obama ain't a fraud and he ain't Kerry.
got it?
- if you don't - you will in Ten month time (assuming the better "man" is nominated on the Dem ticket).
Del_Dolemonte
· 1 year ago
He was the first Repub to win in Iowa in many years, which shows how poor his opponent was.
Bill Clinton won Iowa in 1992 and 1996, and Gore won Iowa in 2000. And in 2006 Ioaw Democrats won a majority in the state's General Assembly.
BurfordHolly
· 1 year ago
Maybe it was the 2004 vote that was stolen
jr565
· 1 year ago
And we all know how conservative Clinton and Gore are. Yes, definitely a conservative state, that Iowa
jr565
· 1 year ago
Ah, a blast from the past. Notice the beaming smile on Kerrys face as he wins Iowa on his quest to achieve loserdom staus. You were probably saying Kerry had it in the bag.
Also I love how history repeats itself and Edwards is still in second place in Iowa. Always a bridesmaid and never a bride I guess. And that does accurately describe him by the way- number two.
Will Cate
· 1 year ago
Actually there is nothing to think about there. There are simply way more Democrats than Republicans in Iowa. It's a more liberal state than it gets portrayed as. So the party-vs.-party turnout is always going to favor the Dems there.
SwabJockey05
· 1 year ago
Well that's one stake/steak to the bosom. However, it’ll take a couple more sharp wooden objects...some holy water...wolfbain...and a basket full of crucifixes to bring down the mangy Hildabeast.
Someone said they’d take two Osama terms if it meant the Hildabeast would be denied the WH. I’m going all in. I’ll see your two Dope terms…and raise you two terms for whichever sad sack the Dope picks for his running mate. That’s right, 16 Years of ANY Dhimmicrat to keep that filthy creature out of the WH.
So far, I’ve not been motivated to go through the trouble to vote. Maybe I’m lazy…or maybe, like IKE, as an AD officer, I get a little queasy casting a vote…especially during “war” (didn’t vote four years ago)…I’ll probably not complete my military absentee ballot this time either UNLESS the Hildabeast is the Dhimmi nominee. I’d go UA, miss ship’s movement, be written up as a deserter (in time of war) to vote for ____________ (fill in blank) if it means helping keep the Clintons and their opportunistic, immoral, criminal pals out of the WH (even though I know the military ballots won’t be “counted”).
onlineanalyst
· 1 year ago
You can be assured that the military votes won't be "counted" if Madame Hillary is the Dem nominee. They will have disappeared into the same black hole as the FBI files and the Rose Law Firm's files.
kentuckydan
· 1 year ago
." If nothing else, it shows that the Clinton impulse for hyperbole, exaggeration, and flat-out untruth didn't just come from Bill. "
Old news I recall her saying in New Zealand that she was proud to be named after Sir Edmund Hillary (she was 7 years old when he did his climb of Mt Everest) Dan Kauffman
Teresa
· 1 year ago
I remember hearing Mitt Romney say that he marched with Martin Luther King. He was 40 when he said it.
Del_Dolemonte
· 1 year ago
Tell us again, Teresa-why are you changing the subject in a thread about Hillary losing Iowa?
By the way, Mitt actually said he watched his FATHER march with MLK.
"Shirley Basore, 72, says she was sitting in the hairdresser’s chair in wealthy Grosse Pointe, Mich., back in 1963 when a rumpus started and she discovered that Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and her governor, George Romney, were marching for civil rights — right past the window.
With the cape still around her neck, Basore went outside and joined the parade.
“They were hand in hand,” recalled Basore, a former high-school English teacher. “They led the march. We all swung our hands, and they held their hands up above everybody else’s.”
She remembered the late governor as “extremely handsome.”
Until this week, that was just a vivid memory for a sweet retiree who now lives in Pompano Beach, Fla.
But Basore’s memory became important this week when news accounts questioned the recollections of the late Michigan governor’s son, Mitt Romney, the Republican presidential candidate and former Massachusetts governor.
News stories suggested that Romney was exaggerating. It turns out that he may not have attended the Grosse Pointe march, but it certainly happened.
The campaign posted citations quoting one author as writing that “George Romney made a surprise appearance in his shirt sleeves and joined the parade leaders.”
Stephen Hess and David S. Broder also wrote about the march in their 1967 book, “The Republican Establishment: The Present and Future of the G.O.P.”
Basore said she was very angry about how the issue has been covered on cable television.
“This very arrogant guy on TV questioned Mitt Romney, and I marched with them,” Basore said. “I hope that the campaign demands an apology. I want him to publicly apologize to me. That was a personal insult, and an insult to Mitt Romney.”
Basore said she called the campaign, and the campaign supplied her contact information.
Another witness, Ashby Richardson, 64, of Massachusetts gave the campaign a similar account.
“I’m just appalled that the news picks this stuff up and say it didn’t happen,” Richardson, now a data-collection consultant, said by phone. “The press is being disingenuous in terms of reporting what actually happened. I remember it vividly. I was only 15 or 20 feet from where both of them were.”
"Mitt Romney went a step further in a 1978 interview with the Boston Herald. Talking about the Mormon Church and racial discrimination, he said: "My father and I marched with Martin Luther King Jr. through the streets of Detroit."
Yesterday, Romney spokesman Eric Fehrnstrom acknowledged that was not true. "Mitt Romney did not march with Martin Luther King," he said in an e-mail statement to the Globe. (http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007...)
unclesmrgol
· 1 year ago
Of course, it all depends on what you mean with "with". If you read the entire article, you have (a) George Romney agreeing with the civil rights stances of MLK, and (b) concretely showing that agreement with commitment via his participation in a Freedom March in Grosse Pointe. So, in at least one meaning of the term "with", George Romney was with Martin Luther King.
There were other ways in which George Romney fought racism -- he was instrumental during his term as Governor in modifying the constitution of the State of Michigan to prohibit racial discrimination in housing -- one of the issues King had visited Detroit to address. This is important because such state constitutional rights were not acknowledged at the federal level until 1968, when the Supreme Court found constitutional what the Republicans, overriding the veto of a Democratic President, had done 102 years before in the widely ignored Civil Rights Act of 1866:
“All citizens of the United States shall have the right, in every State and Territory, as is enjoyed by white citizens thereof, to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey real and personal property.”
Why is this important? Because Mitt Romney can use his father George Romney's civil rights stance, which is counter to that of Mormon theology, to buttress his own statement of independence from the LDS.
Del_Dolemonte
· 1 year ago
Tell us again, Teresa-why are you changing the subject in a thread about Hillary losing Iowa?
Teresa
· 1 year ago
Unlike you, I can multitask! My response was to the extremely stupid comment that Hillary had lied about being named after Sir Edmund Hillary. I love Obama, but I feel compelled to take up for Hillary because of the sheer pettiness of the attacks against her.
mikeVA
· 1 year ago
Forget the thread. I want to know what kind of classless jerk attacks someone that eulogizes a loved one. You are better off going after the fact that Romney as the guy less likely to drink a beer with, and that is the real case. He said saw, watched and walked in a Harvard smart guy way. So elected a bum instead.
Del_Dolemonte
· 1 year ago
So by your logic, in your world, when someone claims something, like Hillary did with Sir Ed, it's true.
Then, when someone comes along and documents-with fact-that the claim in fact is false, it's called "an attack".
I really must come visit your planet sometime...
jr565
· 1 year ago
Multitasking isn't the same as changing the subject. Multitasking would be having a conversation about Clinton and a second one about Romney, while also chewing gum and doing your taxes. So, while you may be able to mutlitask, what you actulaly did was change teh subject. Big difference. Of course, if you think changing the subject is the same as multitasking then you might not be able to multitask, since you're not sure what it means. If you meant by multitasking that you can change the subject and just got the definiitions wrong, then yes I guess you can multitask.
BurfordHolly
· 1 year ago
Del is saying that the press is treating Mitt like they treated Al Gore.
FriendlyGrizzly
· 1 year ago
What Swede said. The screeching harridan loses to the slip-and-fall, "1-800-SHYSTER" lawyer. Then again, on the GOP side we have the Jesus in Every Bedroom candidate in the lead. -sigh-
Snooper
· 1 year ago
Nothing like insulting the people of Iowa telling them that "Iowa really doesn't mater anyway".
Rovin
· 1 year ago
Will this mean, (according to Hillary), that New Hampshire and South Carolina won't matter either? How many states can this lady say "they don't matter" to before the "two-fur machine" finds their gears rusted and jammed by their own fruition?
So many look forward to the day when these two finally get put out to the political pasture where they can do no harm.
keemo
· 1 year ago
I don't know about the "do no harm" part, but the rest of your comment is right on target.
Teresa
· 1 year ago
Well.... according to Rudy nothing matters until February 5th.
gaffo
· 1 year ago
why are you playing the Billary apologist? Keemo is right, - hell even Del and Donkey is right on this one - that being Billary is a fraud, a bitch and unworhty and even a detriment to America should she become president.
Hell I've seen your posts and i think you are ALMOST as liberal as i am. So why are you playing the sellout here?
Billary STINKS - period.
Obama is the better candidate - and should he be defeated by the phoney one (no not the other one - Romney) I and many others (many Liberals like me) will REFUSE to vote in the General and the Repugs will win the nomination.
chew on that one Teresa!!!
- so whats your story? why the sellout?
do tell.
mmebrady
· 1 year ago
Isn't that what Giuliani essentially did by putting zero effort into his campaigning there? And he definitely got what he paid for!
Bennett
· 1 year ago
Hillary needs to rebrand herself, fast. Maybe she should go back to using Rodham again, try to fool the voters into thinking she's somebody else.
keemo
· 1 year ago
Impossible to do, as Rush labeled her "Mrs. Clinton" several months ago.
Teresa
· 1 year ago
After Huck's win yesterday, I think we can safely say it doesn't matter what Rush thinks.
NoDonkey
· 1 year ago
Why, because Huck won a quirky caucus in Iowa?
Huckabee will be done in a month.
Not saying that Rush is a king maker, but there's a long way to go.
Bennett
· 1 year ago
Huckabee gone in a month? Not likely. He gets past NH and then it's on to Bible land. Does Could he win it all? Probably not, but he's not a fluke either. Or, rather, the people supporting him aren't.
Teresa
· 1 year ago
One, I love how Hillary losing in Iowa means that everything is right with the world. But Huck winning in Iowa means that Iowans are a bunch of know nothing cow farmers. Kind of hard to have it both ways unless you want to argue that Iowa Dems are just that much smarter that Iowa R;s.
Second, Huck has SC sewn up. He is already ahead in the polls here and in Florida.
Del_Dolemonte
· 1 year ago
Judging by how the mainstream media today is desperately trying to bury the news about Hillary's 3rd place finish, your first sentence is absolutely correct.
Xango Annie
· 1 year ago
If you were paying attention to ElRusho, Teresa..he said Huck was on track to win it back in the early part of Nov. and you underestimate him at your peril.
Del_Dolemonte
· 1 year ago
"Mrs. Bill Clinton", to be exact.
runawayyyy
· 1 year ago
Monica's boyfriend's wife, to be even more accurate.
NoDonkey
· 1 year ago
I suggest "New Hillary".
It worked out so well for Coke.
mikey
· 1 year ago
Maybe the high turnout in Iowa didn't have so much to do with people wanting to come out and vote for Obama, but to come out and vote AGAINST Hillary. At that point, the choice isn't too tough between the likable guy with the big ears and the phony lawyer with the beautiful hair.
I didn't want to see this happen until the general election. Her losing the primary won't be enough of a slapdown.
Fred
· 1 year ago
Countrystore had an image that we were probaly all thinking, mean little kids that we are.
This race is young. Sen. Clinton will lose in New Hampshire and South Carolina. Then watch the dirt fly. This is going to get ugly. The Clinton team will not give up and they will bring out the Carville, Blumenthal slime machine and the trash will be brought out. It's going to be a bumpy ride. Kevin P.
onlineanalyst
· 1 year ago
One point of note: In Madame Hillary's concession speech, such as it was, she indicated that her Iowa campaign was run as a national election. Her eye is on the big prize, and she will ruthlessly kick aside anything that gets in the way of her goal. Count on it.
JDScott
· 1 year ago
I've got to think the more she champions experience and her ability to deal with world crises the worse she is making things for herself if she wins the nomination.
As Ed pointed out, while her experience and risk management may look good compared to Obama and Edwards it won't look that good come general election time especially if she's up against McCain or Guiliani. And while they lack foreign policy experience Romney and Huckabee have executive experience she does not have and could add foreign policy bonafides through a smart VP choice.
Bennett
· 1 year ago
Her "experience" doesn't look good compared to Obama and Edwards. But that's because she's really experienced at doing pretty much nothing. And doing it very poorly.
Hillary's a 50s era wife masquerading as a 2008 modern woman. She's a throwback. And has no real accomplishments to point to that don't start with "Bill and I..."
kevin P
· 1 year ago
We have already seen how the Clinton team will introduce the trash talk on Sen. Obama. They will slime him by saying he is unelectable because the "Republican Attack Machine" will use this (fill in the blank with any racist, bigoted anti- Obama slur that you can imagine), thus raising the issue while shifting the blame on to someone else.
ThunderRun
· 1 year ago
The Thunder Run has linked to this post in the - Web Reconnaissance for 01/04/2008 A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention, updated throughout the day...so check back often.
Steve Z
· 1 year ago
Hillary may be down, but she's not out yet. Iowa is only one sparsely populated state, which borders on Illinois, where Obama is a Senator, and there are plenty of other much larger states where Hillary leads the Dem polls where she could stage a comeback.
Obama's victory in Iowa, and the fact that he has about as much money as Hillary does, means that Hillary will probably have to spend lots of money to win the Dem nomination (which she probably thought she would win by default), and both Obama and Clinton will probably have to attack each other during the primaries, which could leave the nominee weakened in the general election.
For all the media's raving about Obama's oratorical skills, I haven't heard many concrete proposals from him about what he would do about the problems facing America--maybe he would invade Pakistan and audaciously hope for the best. He talks a lot about working with Republicans, but has never voted with them on any contentious bill or legislation. How is a man who grew up in Indonesia and Hawaii without a father prepared to lead the greatest nation on earth? Obama is an empty liberal suit who talks a good game, but some Republican candidate needs to offer some down-to-earth solutions that can trump Obama's pie-in-the-sky wishful thinking.
The problem is, Mike Huckabee isn't the man to do it. Huckabee raised taxes in Arkansas, let hundreds of felons run free, and his foreign-policy essay plays straight into the Democrats' hands at a dangerous time when we're winning in Iraq but new threats are rising in Iran and Pakistan. Iowa caucus-goers gave us wishful thinkers from both parties--they did us a favor by breaking Hillary's aura of inevitability, but Iowa Republicans forgot to read Saint James' warning that "faith without works is dead".
Hopefully, the Republican primaries in other states can produce a nominee who can give us the works, as well as faith and hope.
rbj
· 1 year ago
Security and risk. It's too risky to trust our security to Hillary. I'm still concerned about all that East Asian (especially Chinese) money flowing into her pocketbook, er, campaign chest.
DayTrader
· 1 year ago
To me her third was not a shock because of her high negative sentiment numbers in national polls.
But I can also remember when Bill pulled only 3% in Iowa.
Old texas Turkey
· 1 year ago
yeah - but we did not know what Hill & Bill were all about back then. We do now.
jr565
· 1 year ago
wait a second, you mean someone who lost Iowa still went on to win the presidency? Stop the presses. This is information that has to get out to Teresa and co. who seem to think that winning in Iowa means elections are over aready.
Theresa, MSgt (ret), USAF
· 1 year ago
The only positive from last nights pathetic results was that billary didn't win. Aside from that, I have come to the realization that I will NOT vote for huckabee if he gets the nod. He is this elections version of billy boob klintoon. I WILL vote for obama/osama before I vote for huckabee. I will have to go to confession and pray for forgiveness afterward, but I rather his naive ass be in the daddy seat than another klintoon type like huckabee. And chuck norris, you are pathetic. I use to admire you for being a USAF Security Forces member during the 70's, but no more. That you support a slick snake oil salesman like huckabee makes me question not only your integrity, but your sanity. Here's hoping your career continues its downward slide you pathetic has been.
okonkolo
· 1 year ago
Some of you folks sound like 9/11 conspiracy freaks when you talk about the "all-powerful" Clintons. Brokered convention? Clinton machine? Nonsense. Hillary is done. For the rest of the primary cycle, Obama will continue to draw in new voters and independents and inspire people, and he can afford to stay positive, while Hillary will continued to be viewed like a Romney: a talented but overly calculated phony. And Obama is going to be positioned be beat any GOP nominee.
patrickneid
· 1 year ago
I hope you are right but I seriously doubt it. The grifters, called the Clinton's, didn't get where they have gotten by accident. Obama is about to learn that lesson.
BurfordHolly
· 1 year ago
The block of voters that is up for grabs are the Edwards people who are already switching to Obama. HRC will not get a single one of them.
unclesmrgol
· 1 year ago
Her Royal What?
jr565
· 1 year ago
They are not all powerful, but they do fight dirty and are willing to get in the mud and fight for their candidate. Clinton didn't get where he was by winning Iowa either. So lets not count your chickens before they hatch. Front runners are not always the ultimate winnners. Just look at Giuliani. He was the projected front runner and he's in dead last in Iowa. But that doesn't mean that he ultmately wont win the whole thing. Each state is different and will impact candidates differently and any number of things can occur between now and elections that could derail any number of candidates.
mmebrady
· 1 year ago
I think you are seriously naive. They may not be "all-powerful", but don't underestimate the Clinton organization, or the depths to which they are willing to sink to win this.
Ray_in_MPLS
· 1 year ago
The only real looser last night was the MSM and the networks who treated this ONE caucus like it was the general election with overboard coverage like periodic updates during scheduled programming, continual coverage on the news channels, "expert" analysts, and even a countdown (68 percent reporting). My god, everyone acts like this is the general election or something! It's the FIRST of a very long nominee section process. Don't forget that there's still 49 other states AND the national conventions yet to go BEFORE the nominee will be selected for ether party. It's still anyone's game right now, no matter what the "experts" tell you.
In regards to Chris Dodd and Joe Biden dropping out, they give up WAY to easily! Obviously not presidential material at all, just like Dean in 2004. We don't want quitters as President.
dhunter
· 1 year ago
McCain of McCain finance reform, of the gang of 14, of voting against George W. Bush tax cuts, of Illegal alien amnesty That McCain! No thankyou wake up Republicans at kleast we know Hillery is a commy. McCain just pretends not to be a DEM.
The only thing hes' been right on is the war!.
mylegsareswollen
· 1 year ago
I look forward to Obama eliminating the Clinton trash from our political scene.
The Clintons have been a disaster for the Democrats yet the media somehow keep shilling for them and claiming they're wildly popular.
Another nail the Clinton "legacy" coffin.
BTW, any predictions on when the usual Democratic suspects accuse President Obama of being an Uncle Tom?
Frank
· 1 year ago
Hillary lost because she comes through as crazily ambitious,ruthless,cold calculating and shrewish.A truly tough leader-say Margaret Thatcher or Golda Mayer never lost the image of a lady averey tough one but a lady nevertheless. And then Hillary and Bill's ethical baggage is staggering. As Lincoln said "you can fool all of the people some of the time...."
Mwalimu_Daudi
· 1 year ago
The irony of the once-leading Democrat using "security and risk" is just a little too delicious for those of us who listened to endless complaints about the divisiveness of Karl Rove.
There will also be a delicious irony at watching Obama (who today has become "Mr. Inevitability") taking the full brunt of the Clinton Inc. mud machine for the next few days - and the MSM helpless to do anything except suggest that Republicans are somehow at fault. For several days – maybe longer – the truth will be plain for everyone to see: Democrats run negative campaigns, too.
okonkolo
· 1 year ago
The Observer has a great Obama zinger about his victory aimed at camp Hillary from this morning:
"This feels good. It's just like I imagined it when I was talking to my Kindergarten teacher."
Ouch!
NoDonkey
· 1 year ago
They should have saw that one coming, but then they've botched everything up to this.
Oh, the ashtrays and lamps are flying in the Clinton quarters.
When Clinton's campaign advisers emerge with black eyes, don't buy the old "I accidentally walked into a door" excuse.
Donna V.
· 1 year ago
Nodonkey,
Ashtrays at Clinton's HQ? Oh, I don't think so. I'll bet a lot of bottles of organic green tea and decafe mocha lattes hit the wall though. It is fun to imagine, isn't it? I picture the scene from the Wizard of Oz where the Wicked Witch appears and all the munchkins scurry .
Donna V.
Waldo
· 1 year ago
If watching one's spouse do something twice counts as experience, then I'm qualified to give birth.
gary fouse
· 1 year ago
The more I see Mike Huckabee in action, the farther he falls in my list of possible Republican nominees. In a previous post, I listed some of the positions and past actions of the former Arkansas governor that I had a problem with. This week's news conference held by the governor regarding the attack ad against Mitt Romney really has me wondering about this guy.
Of course, the backdrop to all this is the Iowa primary that, if you trust in polls, seems to be between Huckabee and Romney. Thus, the two have been taking pot shots at each other in Iowa. Huckabee's camp, led by the ever-feisty Ed Rollins, had produced an ad attacking Romney that was all set to be aired in Iowa this week. Then (apparently), Huckabee decided in the last hours that he didn't want it to run. It seems to me that the natural thing to do would be to just can it and forget about it. Huckabee, however, decided to go through with a news conference scheduled to launch the ad, but announce its cancellation instead. As if that wasn't weird enough, Huckabee (with Rollins present)left standing posters with anti-Romney tidbits-then proceeded to show the assembled reporters the ad-all the while explaining that he (Huckabee) wanted to remain above the fray! So why show the ad to the reporters (insuring that it gets publicity)? Huckabee's explanation is that he felt he had to prove to the press that the ad had actually been made. And those posters in the background? Oh yeah! The decision to cancel the ad was made so late in the game that there wasn't time to take the posters down. If that isn't enough, we have Rollins telling reporters that he would like to punch Romney's teeth in.
What?
Note to Ed: Your services are not needed. Huckabee already has Chuck Norris on board. You know, the guy Huckabee says pushes the ground down when he does pushups?
This guy Huckabee is starting to remind me (a little) of Ross Perot, especially the news conference he called to tell the world about the guys in black ski masks who ran across his front lawn one night (while he was in the garage checking under the hood). Again, few can match Perot for weirdness, but Huckabee now stands, in my view, about one notch above Ron Paul.
To voters who would like to see some civility, at least in the party we plan to vote for, these attacks among Republicans are getting tiresome. Can't you just tell us who you are, what you have done in your lives, what you want to do as president and tell us what policy disagreements you have with the others without trying to paint them as Dudley Nightshade? I know. You say I am naive and know nothing about the real workings of our political system. You are probably correct, but this is a big reason why we get such mediocrity in our elected leaders.
gary fouse fousesquawk
Scorpio
· 1 year ago
How about "It's the economy, stupid" ? Because it still is.
The fundies showed up, giving HuckaBible a win -- but a pathetic showing in relation to the whole vote. The candidates really need to wake up and visit reality now and then.
The thought of HRC's campaign loaded with every crappy democrat for the past 15 years losing has me giddy.
The thought of Obama winning the WH, and effectively ripping the entire collection of rogues from the pages of the democratic party for all time has me pondering who to support in a general election. I am a conservative independent-who has never even thought of voting for a democrat.
keemo
· 1 year ago
Great thread... Hillary will go down swinging wildly, hoping to land a solid punch. This lady is so deserving of the "slow death" (politically speaking) that she has just entered into. The fact that a novice young politician has pinned her to the ropes, speaks volume of the poor candidate she really is. Every where I go, people are saying "anybody but Hillary Clinton".
Bottom line is, the country has had enough of the Bush-Clinton dynasty. Hillary is pushing a "time for change" campaign; she couldn't have been more correct.... Time to put the Bush's and Clinton's out to pasture...
Hillblogger
· 1 year ago
We in Europe are watching your primaries with 'trepidation." There's one thing that can be said of American politics today: exciting, i.e., people are excited -- they see change.
Most Europeans have no doubt the Democratic Party's final nominee will give whoever becomes the GOP presidential candidate a run for his money and give Bush-Cheney, their cronies and their politics a good, hard, lethal kick in the butt.
mmebrady
· 1 year ago
That's hilarious!! Obama should use that!! Seriously!!
mmebrady
· 1 year ago
I saw Rollins on Fox News Thurs night -- that was very telling. I hadn't at any point planned to vote for Huckabee, but I saw him as a very likeable, genuine candidate. After hearing Rollins speak, the "Huckabee the Huckster" references suddenly became clear. I think he has far more politician in him than I realized, and I would be loathe to trust anything the man says or does at this point.
sean
· 1 year ago
The biggest problem with this strategy is it exposes her in the general election. In the general the Rep will call on her to be specific. Dems dont want to criticize Bill, but Rep wont mind. Also, if McCain is the nominee, doesnt her "risk and experience" argument leave her in a losing position.
namehere
· 1 year ago
Hillary: "Don't waste your vote on a ... black guy."
Too risky.
By the end of the campaign, I predict the N word makes an appearance by at least one senior Hillary adviser.
NoDonkey
· 1 year ago
I'm sure it has - nitwit.
When they're talking about HIllary.
No one knows better what a micromanaging, two-faced, backstabbing, incompetent shrew she is.
But they're getting paid to put lipstick on this pig, so that's what they'll do.
gaffo
· 1 year ago
why are you calling "namehere" a nitwit?
what call have you? He/She posts a comment that you agree with and then you post a reply and an insult in one post!
WTF is your problem Soldier?
I agree with namehere's post that Billary or one of her lackies will eventually play the race card (and i personally have supported Obama as the best MAN (not Black man -etc....) for two years now) and imply that a Black man is not electable before this is all said and done. BUT all this is irrelivant to this post.
You either should clearify why you insulted namehere or post a public apology to the same.
or be imortalized as an asshole.
decide.
I hope you chose Honour.
brian
· 1 year ago
gaffo, n-word. nitwit. Try reading it again before you get your panties in a bunch. Consider yourself "imortalized"... from, a White man (what is that all about?)
Monkei
· 1 year ago
the real loser last night was the GOP. Imaging having to run against either Obama or Edwards in the general election! Without Hillary to rise up and stand against it will just be a matter of which GOP candidate will be laid out for the slaughter.
jerry
· 1 year ago
Monkei:
You sound just like the mouldy old socialist leader of old Labor Tony (former Lord Anthony Wedgewood) Benn who believed that the only reason the British voted for Margaret Thatcher was that Labor wasn't socialist enough.
Many Americans hunger for a free lunch as long as it doesn’t cost them anything but they still despise socialism and socialists. I happen to think highly of Barak Obama but he is still a socialist and has no appeal to me or ultimately a majority of the voters. Edwards is nothing but a shyster lawyer whose promises of "free" healthcare will ring hollow when the Republicans show how he drove obstetricians out of North Carolina with phony “wrongful birth” lawsuits and made healthcare both less affordable and less available in the state
America is not now nor will it ever be the "Socialist Paradise" that you hunger for.
Del_Dolemonte
· 1 year ago
Edwards hasn't got a chance.
If Obama gets the nomination, I think Rudy could easily take him out. I'm not too sure about any of the others.
In any event, I'm sure there are plenty of Republicans who would even prefer 4 or 8 years of Obama to 4 or 8 more years of the Clintons.
retiredmilitary
· 1 year ago
Well if Obama gets the nomination count on Hillary as his VP. No way around it. Too much money and too much influence and too much Clinton "kill all enemies of us" folks who will do anything to destroy opposition.
Besides if Hillary is VP for 2 years under Obama then count on Obama having some scandal from his past pop up that will drive him to commit "suicide" somewhere maybe say in a park. Then we can have Queen Hillary right where she belongs. Not for 4 years, not for 8 years but for almost 10,
BTW Kerry got a lot of votes from folks who said they are voting for ABB "anybody but Bush". Whoever the republican opponent to a Hillary for President will be will also get the ABB vote "anybody but Billary"
wheres_waldo
· 1 year ago
I would not bet on it, Rudy, if she were not nominated, would alienate the evangelical voter, like it or not they are a significant portion of Republican voters. Without her on the ticket, few will see a reason to vote for what is perceived as just slightly better than Hillary. If Huck or Rudy get the nomination Republicans will be in trouble, either canidate will alienate a portion of their support, and that could cost the election. Rudy’s appeal to social conservatives has been stick with you or me get her, without her there is no motivating factor voting for somebody who does not value the core things you believe in. Same truth applies for Huck and the conservative fiscals who will not vote for him. Somebody like Mitt or Fred will need to win to stay competitive with Obama. Obama is a charmer and elections are not about logic or policies, but about how the voter FEELS about the candidate.
Del_Dolemonte
· 1 year ago
Hillary's not toast yet.
NoDonkey
· 1 year ago
Yes, because both unqualified, inexperienced, one-term Senate nitwits are unbeatable.
Might as well throw in the towel today, the least qualified major party candidate in history that the Dems are running is just a juggernaut.
You're just making it harder for the Dems to accept it when their third crappy candidate in a row, blows the election Monkei, now why do you want to do that?
Steverino
· 1 year ago
Edwards is a completely empty suit. His populist message will run dry under the first real challenge from a GOP nominee. Obama's a little less empty, but all he has behind him is a partial term in the Senate. Not much to ride on all the way to the White House.
jr565
· 1 year ago
Because Edwards was so formidable the last time too.
All Comments
Before last night I thought Obama had a 25% shot at beating Hillary. Now I think he's favorite to win not only his party's nomination, but the whole thing.
It wasn't just his victory last night, it was his speech afterwards. Sure, it was filled with cliches and platitudes, but it was terrific all the same. I found myself enthused by it, even though I disagree with him on pretty much everything.
Some of his comments on international issues have been alarming, but I won't lose any sleep over the prospect of him winning in November. It's impossible to dislike Obama; and impossible to like Hillary.
I agree. The Dope seems like, well, a dope, but he's a likable dope. The idea of him being loose in the White House doesn't fill me with glee, but at least it doesn't fill me with horror, either. IF he can demonstrate that he's not just an empty suit, he's got a good shot at winning the whole thing. While we may lament it, likability is an important - perhaps THE most important - thing for a presidential candidate.
I'll tell you what Al Qaeda sees in Barack Obama: they see a useful idiot and a complete pushover.
If, or when, Obama gets the nomination, possibly the most devastating thing his Republican debate opponent will throw at him is, "Yes, it's very nice to talk about change and 'moral standing.' However, what's your Plan B if Al Qaeda doesn't buy in to your program?"
1) I don't think the Republicans have a chance of winning this year. While the surge has produced some amazing dividends, the fact remains that we're still fighting a war lots of the American people wanted to have over in 2003.
Besides which, the Reps spent most of last year kicking the Hispanic community in the teeth with the immigration issue. Remember that Bush won in 2000 because he carried Florida ... which had just experienced Elian Gonzalez? Now the shoe's on the other foot. I think we'll lose Florida, and with it just about every state except the Heartland and Alaska.
If we're going to be forced to have a Democrat in 2008, of all the ones I'd choose, I'd choose Obama. We've seen the Clinton's record in Somalia, and Edwards comes across as used-car salesman. He can't win the general election. Obama *might*.
The problem here is that I'm afraid he'll try a very premature withdrawal strategy, which will unleash a terrorist Hell in Iraq. Not just there, but everywhere else in the world when people realize that you don't have to beat the US on the battlefield ... you just have to outlast them.
In my lifetime, the US has retreated from Vietnam, Lebanon, Somalia. Iraq will probably cement our reputation as a giant with great strength but no endurance. You can kiss goodbye any initiative to bring freedom to any part of the world. Both the terrorists and the democrats will know better to depend on us.
The bottom line is that, unless God touches Obama's heart and convinces him to build democracy in Iraq rather than abandoning them to religious theocracy or thuggish dictatorship, we've got until January 2009 to get Iraq functioning on it's own. On Inauguration day 2009 the fledgling will be kicked from the nest, like it or not, and if it fails things will only get worse for us.
Respectfully,
Brian P.
It is too easy for many Democrats (and yes, some Republicans) to sit in the comfort of their home, secure in their own freedom to cast aside the Iraqi citizen. I just cannot conceive of that lack of compassion or ethics.
That is why this issue is my overriding priority in 2008.
I'm sure some folks around him know what is coming. The Clinton machine is the most ruthless bloodthirsty enterprise that has metastasized since Tammany Hall. Unlike most they have been in business almost twenty years. Prisons are littered with their minions--even graveyards have picked up a suspicious few.
When they get done with him he won't even know who his wife is. Will any of the accusations be true? Of course not. But a vote here, a vote there and the white trash are back in the White House.
My only hope, and it is extremely thin, is that the "ruthlessness" will be her undoing and the electorate will see it for what it is. My fear, however, is that an electorate that can over look Bill's life of debauchery and misogyny will take her "lying ways" right in stride. We have some posters here who are perfect examples of the Faustian bargain they are willing to make where the 'end justifies the means'.
What "strength"? The "strength" that had her complaining about being picked on because she's a woman when Rick Lazio DARED to walk across the stage to her? Or when she again played the helpwess widdle woman card when mean ol' Tim Russert DARED to ask her a question about illegal immigrants and drivers licences? The "strength" that has her running to Slick every time she flounders (which is to say, about once each week; gotta put a crimp in his love life)? For that matter, the "strength" that had her stick with that philandering bastard when his extramarital affairs were exposed for the entire world to see? The "strength" that causes her to fabricate stories about herself, ranging from "I was named for a man who wasn't famous until several years after I was born" to "The Apollo program inspired me to, um, to... er... Get into politics" to "I go where the danger is!"? The "strength" that led her to dig through Obama's GRAMMAR SCHOOL records to try to get some dirt on him?
She's not "strong" at all. Rather, she's a grasping shrew who seems to believe that the White House is hers by some divine right because she's smarter than the rest of us... and because she put up with Slick's crap for all these years.
Oh, she makes me sooooo f***ing sick. She really does.
I've written several times that I'll never vote for John McCain this side of hell. This is not true. If the Hilldabeast is the nominee for the despicable dems, I will crawl naked over broken glass to trip the lever for McCain. I'd hate myself in the morning, but I'd do it.
God save the United States from this disgusting woman.
They know she's polarizing...yet they still parade her about...like a freak at the circus. How long before they have her biting the heads off pigeons?
Partisanship is a powerful influence. For example, I can't understand why the libs hate George Bush as much as they do, and I'm sure that they can't understand why I and EVERYBODY else wasn't willing to do almost anything to keep him from being reelected back in '04.
That being said, I sometimes wonder if the average dem REALLY likes Hillary, or if they just sort of support her because she's their "top" candidate. I have yet to see anybody, even the most rabid of our resident lefties, tell us why they like Hillary; usually, the best they can do is sputter that they hate Bush (like we didn't already know that) and that "Republicans do it, too!" anytime the Hilldabeast does something unethical / questionable / despicable.
Hillary has had high negatives even in her own party for quite a while.
So the libs are like stopped digital clocks. Either they are completely vacuos or speaking in code which makes questions of rights and wrong immaterial.
I am going to get a Democrat ballot, and either vote for Obama or write in Joe Lieberman-just to deny Hillary a vote.
IF he gets elected, he'll have to think about getting re-elected. Reproducing Saigon might quicken the heart of the lunatic Democrat base and their geriatric hippie contingent, but it's not going to engender confidence in the general electorate.
He'll evaluate the options and realize he won't be able to keep his promise regarding a pullout from Iraq. His lunatic base won't go Republican in 2012 and by then, it will be old news.
But he's a Democrat. That's their party and that's what they do.
At least he'll have a new crop of incompetents and we won't have to hear Madelaine Albright babbling again.
Speaking of exactly that, what happened to Kucinich? Do you think his people will now go for Obama in every state?
As no donkey says Obama will say anything to get elected. He's a democrat. But at this point at least he is not blaming the vast right wing and now the MSM for any expression of criticism against him.
The Clintonistas with their everyone is to blame but us mentality are like the sound of fingernails scratching a chalkbaord.
God save the United States from this disgusting woman."
LOL.......I feel the same way from the other side of the aisle.
and though since McCain has been kissing the JR's ass the last two years I've come to loathe McCain.............I will join you in voting for him if that is my duty to prevent that pandering women from the Presidency.
America cannnot live through 8 more years of amoral leadership.
I do have to say I'm eager for the South Carolina to arrive - it seems forever since I've seen Hillary's impression of Cynthia McKinney.
Bloomberg is a Hillary (liberal) Democrat without Hillary's baggage. He could do well.
Would bring out the suckle staters. A national nanny in your kitchen to tell you what to eat and lead you in jumping jacks afterwards.
Or else.
Jimmy Carter has VAST experience of international affairs. Need I say more?
/Mr Lynn
I thought Obama's speech last night was one of the worst political speeches I have ever heard. It was one short cliche after another and most of them contradictory such as leaving Iraq (where al Qaeda is taking a shit -kicking) and fighting the war on terror.
Clinton of course can point out the contradictions in his foreign policy but she can't do so wiithout drawing attention to her own.
The Democrat Party field is the worst I can remember in my 60 years. Edwards wants to wage a class war, Clinton wants a gender war (the whole world's watching) and Obama wants to wage a war on the America that produced him and his campaign. He's right that America does need change if someone with a resume as thin as his, and someone so cluelessly naive about the war declared on America, can be taken seriously.
Reading anything written by Ellen Goodman is never a good idea.
"the Dem field is an embarrassment of riches"
As far as "wealth" is concerned, she is correct. Clinton and Edwards are loaded. We can all agree on that.
As far as qualities one would expect a President to have (experience, knowledge, character), the Dem field is sleeping on sewer grates and bumming spare change.
telling that you neglect the most important quality: JUDGEMENT (i.e. common sense).
of the three qualities you mention Obama has two:
and he apears to have the one I mention as well.
....................
how many does bush have?
experience? - yes, he was a Governor and lived a few miles from me in the mid 90's. And jogged at Townlake - never saw him, but did see his "opponent" Richards out there several times.
Knowledge - HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!........Obama could run circle around Bush on that one!
character - ................well.............not from what I can see - but maybe you can see some where I cannot WRT Bush.
So (giving the benefit of the doubt and assuming JR has "character" we have a........................
TIE: both Jr and Obama have 2 or the three qualities you value so much!
BUT only ONE HAS THE QUALITY I VALUE - COMMON SENSE!
that it ain't Bush Jr - how whimsickly went to war out of choice and without a plan to leave nor a plan to creat a new Iraq.
Bush is a MORON - and morons lack judgement.
........do you lack judgement Dockey?
My point of course is that this is not a real position in favor of actually doing something related to a war on terror. Rather, its is a distraction from having to come up with actual policies on the war on terror.
We all know that no democrat is going to suggest we move our troops from Iraq and into afghanistan and run the risk of dealing with the quagmire there. What if it increases terrorism, war is bad, people will die, there will be quagmires, and it will cost money and time and setbacks, none of which the dems will stomach.
So I will say that the dems suggestion that we withdraw on Iraq is a distraction from the real war on terror, a war on terror that they just don't want to fight.
John Edwards.
Think about that.
On the other side of the coin, this is now John McCain's turn to shine. If McCain can win NH, then I think an awful lot of folks will get behind him as the alternative to Huckabee. I still think in the end it's McCain-Romney or even McCain-Thompson to cement the deal.
Remember, Reagan lost Iowa in 1980 to Bush Senior. He won in NH and was the comeback kid, but Bush earned himself a VP slot with Iowa.
And a McCain - Clinton contest WILL keep a Republican in the White House. The political landscape is going to change greatly over the next few months.
Think about that !
It's an apples and oranges comparison due to the way each party caucases in Iowa.
Nice try, though.
Besides, if you exclude the illegal immigrant vote, the phony votes, the comatose votes, the deceased vote and the family dog vote Democrats clean up on, it was probably fairly even.
http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/01/01/america/...
Whereas those unfortunate wretches who can't work for whatever pathetic reason, have oodles of time to waste on these silly caucuses, in the hope that some billionaire jackass like John Edwards, Hillary Clinton or George Soros will hand them a sack of gold and their dreams will all come true.
Bush barely beat Kerry in 2004 because even a good percentage of liberals were smart enough to see what a complete and utter incompetent fraud Kerry was. It'll hold true on the way to the Republicans trouncing the Dems crappy 2008 candidate.
But apparently they have the good sense to vote AGAINST a billionaire jackass like Mitt Romney. GO IOWA!
Hillary has a net worth of almost $40 mil, most of which has been made in the past 7 years.
The Mittster sure managed to blow through a big chunk of
Tagg's inheritence though didn't he?
How many companies has Obama run again? What exactly has he done other than mpress oprah?
Boy are your arguments tired.
don't remember any presidents named Kerry. I do remmber a Kerry who siad he was reporting for duty, and had something to do with a Heinz ketchup bottle though. Oh and he looked a bit like Lurch, only more gangly.
Whatever happened to that guy? He was really swell.
Gotta love the fear - I can smell it from here Donkey.
here's a clue, clueless: Obama ain't a fraud and he ain't Kerry.
got it?
- if you don't - you will in Ten month time (assuming the better "man" is nominated on the Dem ticket).
Bill Clinton won Iowa in 1992 and 1996, and Gore won Iowa in 2000. And in 2006 Ioaw Democrats won a majority in the state's General Assembly.
Yes, definitely a conservative state, that Iowa
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/01/19/elec0...
Also I love how history repeats itself and Edwards is still in second place in Iowa. Always a bridesmaid and never a bride I guess. And that does accurately describe him by the way- number two.
Someone said they’d take two Osama terms if it meant the Hildabeast would be denied the WH. I’m going all in. I’ll see your two Dope terms…and raise you two terms for whichever sad sack the Dope picks for his running mate. That’s right, 16 Years of ANY Dhimmicrat to keep that filthy creature out of the WH.
So far, I’ve not been motivated to go through the trouble to vote. Maybe I’m lazy…or maybe, like IKE, as an AD officer, I get a little queasy casting a vote…especially during “war” (didn’t vote four years ago)…I’ll probably not complete my military absentee ballot this time either UNLESS the Hildabeast is the Dhimmi nominee. I’d go UA, miss ship’s movement, be written up as a deserter (in time of war) to vote for ____________ (fill in blank) if it means helping keep the Clintons and their opportunistic, immoral, criminal pals out of the WH (even though I know the military ballots won’t be “counted”).
Old news I recall her saying in New Zealand that she was proud to be named after Sir Edmund Hillary (she was 7 years old when he did his climb of Mt Everest)
Dan Kauffman
By the way, Mitt actually said he watched his FATHER march with MLK.
"Shirley Basore, 72, says she was sitting in the hairdresser’s chair in wealthy Grosse Pointe, Mich., back in 1963 when a rumpus started and she discovered that Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and her governor, George Romney, were marching for civil rights — right past the window.
With the cape still around her neck, Basore went outside and joined the parade.
“They were hand in hand,” recalled Basore, a former high-school English teacher. “They led the march. We all swung our hands, and they held their hands up above everybody else’s.”
She remembered the late governor as “extremely handsome.”
Until this week, that was just a vivid memory for a sweet retiree who now lives in Pompano Beach, Fla.
But Basore’s memory became important this week when news accounts questioned the recollections of the late Michigan governor’s son, Mitt Romney, the Republican presidential candidate and former Massachusetts governor.
News stories suggested that Romney was exaggerating. It turns out that he may not have attended the Grosse Pointe march, but it certainly happened.
The campaign posted citations quoting one author as writing that “George Romney made a surprise appearance in his shirt sleeves and joined the parade leaders.”
Stephen Hess and David S. Broder also wrote about the march in their 1967 book, “The Republican Establishment: The Present and Future of the G.O.P.”
Basore said she was very angry about how the issue has been covered on cable television.
“This very arrogant guy on TV questioned Mitt Romney, and I marched with them,” Basore said. “I hope that the campaign demands an apology. I want him to publicly apologize to me. That was a personal insult, and an insult to Mitt Romney.”
Basore said she called the campaign, and the campaign supplied her contact information.
Another witness, Ashby Richardson, 64, of Massachusetts gave the campaign a similar account.
“I’m just appalled that the news picks this stuff up and say it didn’t happen,” Richardson, now a data-collection consultant, said by phone. “The press is being disingenuous in terms of reporting what actually happened. I remember it vividly. I was only 15 or 20 feet from where both of them were.”
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1207/7524....
And plenty of proof here that George Romney did march:
http://www.mittromney.com/News/Press-Releases/R...
"Mitt Romney went a step further in a 1978 interview with the Boston Herald. Talking about the Mormon Church and racial discrimination, he said: "My father and I marched with Martin Luther King Jr. through the streets of Detroit."
Yesterday, Romney spokesman Eric Fehrnstrom acknowledged that was not true. "Mitt Romney did not march with Martin Luther King," he said in an e-mail statement to the Globe.
(http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007...)
There were other ways in which George Romney fought racism -- he was instrumental during his term as Governor in modifying the constitution of the State of Michigan to prohibit racial discrimination in housing -- one of the issues King had visited Detroit to address. This is important because such state constitutional rights were not acknowledged at the federal level until 1968, when the Supreme Court found constitutional what the Republicans, overriding the veto of a Democratic President, had done 102 years before in the widely ignored Civil Rights Act of 1866:
Why is this important? Because Mitt Romney can use his father George Romney's civil rights stance, which is counter to that of Mormon theology, to buttress his own statement of independence from the LDS.
feel compelled to take up for Hillary because of the sheer pettiness of the attacks against her.
Then, when someone comes along and documents-with fact-that the claim in fact is false, it's called "an attack".
I really must come visit your planet sometime...
So, while you may be able to mutlitask, what you actulaly did was change teh subject. Big difference.
Of course, if you think changing the subject is the same as multitasking then you might not be able to multitask, since you're not sure what it means.
If you meant by multitasking that you can change the subject and just got the definiitions wrong, then yes I guess you can multitask.
So many look forward to the day when these two finally get put out to the political pasture where they can do no harm.
Hell I've seen your posts and i think you are ALMOST as liberal as i am. So why are you playing the sellout here?
Billary STINKS - period.
Obama is the better candidate - and should he be defeated by the phoney one (no not the other one - Romney) I and many others (many Liberals like me) will REFUSE to vote in the General and the Repugs will win the nomination.
chew on that one Teresa!!!
- so whats your story? why the sellout?
do tell.
Huckabee will be done in a month.
Not saying that Rush is a king maker, but there's a long way to go.
Second, Huck has SC sewn up. He is already ahead in the polls here and in Florida.
It worked out so well for Coke.
I didn't want to see this happen until the general election. Her losing the primary won't be enough of a slapdown.
http://countrystore.blogspot.com/2008/01/troubl...
Kevin P.
As Ed pointed out, while her experience and risk management may look good compared to Obama and Edwards it won't look that good come general election time especially if she's up against McCain or Guiliani. And while they lack foreign policy experience Romney and Huckabee have executive experience she does not have and could add foreign policy bonafides through a smart VP choice.
Hillary's a 50s era wife masquerading as a 2008 modern woman. She's a throwback. And has no real accomplishments to point to that don't start with "Bill and I..."
Obama's victory in Iowa, and the fact that he has about as much money as Hillary does, means that Hillary will probably have to spend lots of money to win the Dem nomination (which she probably thought she would win by default), and both Obama and Clinton will probably have to attack each other during the primaries, which could leave the nominee weakened in the general election.
For all the media's raving about Obama's oratorical skills, I haven't heard many concrete proposals from him about what he would do about the problems facing America--maybe he would invade Pakistan and audaciously hope for the best. He talks a lot about working with Republicans, but has never voted with them on any contentious bill or legislation. How is a man who grew up in Indonesia and Hawaii without a father prepared to lead the greatest nation on earth? Obama is an empty liberal suit who talks a good game, but some Republican candidate needs to offer some down-to-earth solutions that can trump Obama's pie-in-the-sky wishful thinking.
The problem is, Mike Huckabee isn't the man to do it. Huckabee raised taxes in Arkansas, let hundreds of felons run free, and his foreign-policy essay plays straight into the Democrats' hands at a dangerous time when we're winning in Iraq but new threats are rising in Iran and Pakistan. Iowa caucus-goers gave us wishful thinkers from both parties--they did us a favor by breaking Hillary's aura of inevitability, but Iowa Republicans forgot to read Saint James' warning that "faith without works is dead".
Hopefully, the Republican primaries in other states can produce a nominee who can give us the works, as well as faith and hope.
It's too risky to trust our security to Hillary. I'm still concerned about all that East Asian (especially Chinese) money flowing into her pocketbook, er, campaign chest.
But I can also remember when Bill pulled only 3% in Iowa.
So lets not count your chickens before they hatch. Front runners are not always the ultimate winnners. Just look at Giuliani. He was the projected front runner and he's in dead last in Iowa. But that doesn't mean that he ultmately wont win the whole thing. Each state is different and will impact candidates differently and any number of things can occur between now and elections that could derail any number of candidates.
In regards to Chris Dodd and Joe Biden dropping out, they give up WAY to easily! Obviously not presidential material at all, just like Dean in 2004. We don't want quitters as President.
The only thing hes' been right on is the war!.
The Clintons have been a disaster for the Democrats yet the media somehow keep shilling for them and claiming they're wildly popular.
Another nail the Clinton "legacy" coffin.
BTW, any predictions on when the usual Democratic suspects accuse President Obama of being an Uncle Tom?
There will also be a delicious irony at watching Obama (who today has become "Mr. Inevitability") taking the full brunt of the Clinton Inc. mud machine for the next few days - and the MSM helpless to do anything except suggest that Republicans are somehow at fault. For several days – maybe longer – the truth will be plain for everyone to see: Democrats run negative campaigns, too.
"This feels good. It's just like I imagined it when I was talking to my Kindergarten teacher."
Ouch!
Oh, the ashtrays and lamps are flying in the Clinton quarters.
When Clinton's campaign advisers emerge with black eyes, don't buy the old "I accidentally walked into a door" excuse.
Ashtrays at Clinton's HQ? Oh, I don't think so. I'll bet a lot of bottles of organic green tea and decafe mocha lattes hit the wall though. It is fun to imagine, isn't it? I picture the scene from the Wizard of Oz where the Wicked Witch appears and all the munchkins scurry .
Donna V.
Of course, the backdrop to all this is the Iowa primary that, if you trust in polls, seems to be between Huckabee and Romney. Thus, the two have been taking pot shots at each other in Iowa. Huckabee's camp, led by the ever-feisty Ed Rollins, had produced an ad attacking Romney that was all set to be aired in Iowa this week. Then (apparently), Huckabee decided in the last hours that he didn't want it to run. It seems to me that the natural thing to do would be to just can it and forget about it. Huckabee, however, decided to go through with a news conference scheduled to launch the ad, but announce its cancellation instead. As if that wasn't weird enough, Huckabee (with Rollins present)left standing posters with anti-Romney tidbits-then proceeded to show the assembled reporters the ad-all the while explaining that he (Huckabee) wanted to remain above the fray! So why show the ad to the reporters (insuring that it gets publicity)? Huckabee's explanation is that he felt he had to prove to the press that the ad had actually been made. And those posters in the background? Oh yeah! The decision to cancel the ad was made so late in the game that there wasn't time to take the posters down. If that isn't enough, we have Rollins telling reporters that he would like to punch Romney's teeth in.
What?
Note to Ed: Your services are not needed. Huckabee already has Chuck Norris on board. You know, the guy Huckabee says pushes the ground down when he does pushups?
This guy Huckabee is starting to remind me (a little) of Ross Perot, especially the news conference he called to tell the world about the guys in black ski masks who ran across his front lawn one night (while he was in the garage checking under the hood). Again, few can match Perot for weirdness, but Huckabee now stands, in my view, about one notch above Ron Paul.
To voters who would like to see some civility, at least in the party we plan to vote for, these attacks among Republicans are getting tiresome. Can't you just tell us who you are, what you have done in your lives, what you want to do as president and tell us what policy disagreements you have with the others without trying to paint them as Dudley Nightshade? I know. You say I am naive and know nothing about the real workings of our political system. You are probably correct, but this is a big reason why we get such mediocrity in our elected leaders.
gary fouse
fousesquawk
The fundies showed up, giving HuckaBible a win -- but a pathetic showing in relation to the whole vote. The candidates really need to wake up and visit reality now and then.
poor mr or mrs president
The thought of Obama winning the WH, and effectively ripping the entire collection of rogues from the pages of the democratic party for all time has me pondering who to support in a general election. I am a conservative independent-who has never even thought of voting for a democrat.
Bottom line is, the country has had enough of the Bush-Clinton dynasty. Hillary is pushing a "time for change" campaign; she couldn't have been more correct.... Time to put the Bush's and Clinton's out to pasture...
Most Europeans have no doubt the Democratic Party's final nominee will give whoever becomes the GOP presidential candidate a run for his money and give Bush-Cheney, their cronies and their politics a good, hard, lethal kick in the butt.
Also, if McCain is the nominee, doesnt her "risk and experience" argument leave her in a losing position.
Too risky.
By the end of the campaign, I predict the N word makes an appearance by at least one senior Hillary adviser.
When they're talking about HIllary.
No one knows better what a micromanaging, two-faced, backstabbing, incompetent shrew she is.
But they're getting paid to put lipstick on this pig, so that's what they'll do.
what call have you? He/She posts a comment that you agree with and then you post a reply and an insult in one post!
WTF is your problem Soldier?
I agree with namehere's post that Billary or one of her lackies will eventually play the race card (and i personally have supported Obama as the best MAN (not Black man -etc....) for two years now) and imply that a Black man is not electable before this is all said and done. BUT all this is irrelivant to this post.
You either should clearify why you insulted namehere or post a public apology to the same.
or be imortalized as an asshole.
decide.
I hope you chose Honour.
n-word. nitwit. Try reading it again before you get your panties in a bunch.
Consider yourself "imortalized"...
from,
a White man (what is that all about?)
You sound just like the mouldy old socialist leader of old Labor Tony (former Lord Anthony Wedgewood) Benn who believed that the only reason the British voted for Margaret Thatcher was that Labor wasn't socialist enough.
Many Americans hunger for a free lunch as long as it doesn’t cost them anything but they still despise socialism and socialists. I happen to think highly of Barak Obama but he is still a socialist and has no appeal to me or ultimately a majority of the voters. Edwards is nothing but a shyster lawyer whose promises of "free" healthcare will ring hollow when the Republicans show how he drove obstetricians out of North Carolina with phony “wrongful birth” lawsuits and made healthcare both less affordable and less available in the state
America is not now nor will it ever be the "Socialist Paradise" that you hunger for.
If Obama gets the nomination, I think Rudy could easily take him out. I'm not too sure about any of the others.
In any event, I'm sure there are plenty of Republicans who would even prefer 4 or 8 years of Obama to 4 or 8 more years of the Clintons.
Besides if Hillary is VP for 2 years under Obama then count on Obama having some scandal from his past pop up that will drive him to commit "suicide" somewhere maybe say in a park. Then we can have Queen Hillary right where she belongs. Not for 4 years, not for 8 years but for almost 10,
BTW Kerry got a lot of votes from folks who said they are voting for ABB "anybody but Bush". Whoever the republican opponent to a Hillary for President will be will also get the ABB vote "anybody but Billary"
Might as well throw in the towel today, the least qualified major party candidate in history that the Dems are running is just a juggernaut.
You're just making it harder for the Dems to accept it when their third crappy candidate in a row, blows the election Monkei, now why do you want to do that?
I see where you're coming from.