Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
10/20/2017 1:01:18 AM
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 8/9/2005 5:57:05 PM EDT
N.Y. fell for her, but will US voters?
Hillary Clinton has a '06 challenger, but the political twittering is about '08.


By Linda Feldmann
The Christian Science Monitor
August 10, 2005
www.csmonitor.com/2005/0810/p01s01-uspo.html
WASHINGTON – To some voters, she is a ruthless Machiavelli-in-a-pantsuit who will do anything to resume residence at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. To others, she is the brilliant and inspiring golden girl, poised to make history as America's first female president.
Nearly all Americans have an opinion about Hillary Rodham Clinton, the junior senator from New York, and if she runs for president, as expected, she will begin her quest for the Democratic nomination well ahead of her rivals. On one point, still with 2-1/2 years to go before the first caucuses or primaries, political analysts agree: The nomination is hers to lose.

She could yet lose it, they add. Just as Democratic voters had second thoughts about Howard Dean's "electability" on the eve of the 2004 Iowa caucuses, so, too, could the earliest primary voters in 2008 get collective cold feet and opt for a safer choice. "There may be a 'eureka!' moment early in 2008, when Demo- crats find a more moderate candidate who can actually win in November," says Larry Sabato, a political scientist at the University of Virginia in Charlottesville.

Of course, the first hurdle for Senator Clinton is to persuade New Yorkers to reelect her in 2006 to her current post. In that contest, her likely opponent - Republican Jeanine Pirro, district attorney of Westchester County - is already making an issue of Clinton's presidential ambitions. "Hillary Clinton is not running to serve the people of New York," Ms. Pirro said Monday upon announcing her candidacy for the Senate seat. "We are just a way station in her run for the presidency."

There's no arguing that Clinton would bring a trunkful of baggage to a presidential race, including her controversial role in her husband's presidency. But some pollsters remain sanguine about her chances.

"She's got name recognition, she has a solid constituency, and she has a targeted women's constituency," says John Zogby, an independent pollster based in Utica, N.Y., who has watched Clinton campaign. "As first lady, she started out with being a hero to women working outside the home. During the latter part of the '90s, during [the Monica Lewinsky scandal] and impeachment, she became a hero to traditional wives. Whether she orchestrated it or not, she got people to admire her."

Still, her challenge in the general election would be stark: While most nonincumbent candidates start as a bit of a blank slate, Clinton would come out of the gate with high negatives baked into a significant portion of the American psyche during her 14 years in the national eye. The latest Gallup numbers on her, from May, showed that 39 percent of the public viewed her negatively. That same poll found 47 percent of registered voters either "not very likely" or "not at all likely" to vote for her in the 2008 general election.

On the flip side, Gallup found, 52 percent of voters would be "very likely" or "somewhat likely" to vote for her.

Though it's extremely early to be gauging her chances, Clinton's '08 prospects are an evergreen topic of conversation in political circles. The record $6 million second-quarter fundraising total for her Senate reelection made headlines in July - and reaffirmed her prowess as a money machine. Pundits made note, too, of her recent agreement to head up the centrist Democratic Leadership Council's project to craft a new agenda and message for the party. (The DLC was the ideological home base of her husband's presidential campaigns.)

Republicans, too, keep her in the news, either by partnering with her on legislation or as a foil on social issues. Early this month, Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, the No. 3 Senate Republican, struggling in his own reelection bid, challenged the "radical" Clinton to a debate on child- rearing during an appearance on ABC's "This Week."

For Hillary-watchers, one question is whether she can duplicate her New York success on a national scale. In 2000, she stunned naysayers and won over enough voters - despite her lack of New York roots - to win the seat of retiring Sen. Patrick Moynihan (D).

"I've seen her neutralize people who don't like her, simply by being charming and nice, crossing into their space and being nonthreatening," says Mr. Zogby.

As a national candidate, though, Clinton would have to adapt to the more TV-oriented, tarmac-to-tarmac format of general elections. Another challenge: Stumping in the "red" Republican parts of New York isn't the same as venturing into the red states of the South or Mountain states where Democrats have struggled.

"I kind of doubt she'll be able to" win over red America, says James Campbell, a political scientist at the University at Buffalo.
Link Posted: 8/9/2005 6:00:50 PM EDT
Bullshit. America hates her. You have to keep in mind the state of affairs NY is. NY would elect Saddam Hussein if he were running. Too many morons, gangbangers, and the loony left.

According to the DU that I checked on one occassion to see what the fuss was about, "she's just not likeable".

That thing will never be elected in any office other than NY, MA, DC, or CA.
Link Posted: 8/9/2005 6:01:26 PM EDT
Oh hell NO!
Link Posted: 8/9/2005 6:06:36 PM EDT

Originally Posted By MachinegunManiac:

That thing will never be elected in any office other than NY, MA, DC, or CA.




Put Washington State on the list. Thanks to election-rigging, corrupt King County (Seattle), she'd definitely be elected to office here.
Link Posted: 8/9/2005 6:32:10 PM EDT
Let the liberals run her for president. She will get an ass-kicking. Queen Hillary is a hated woman in most parts of the country.
Link Posted: 8/9/2005 6:41:06 PM EDT

Originally Posted By boltmaster:

Originally Posted By MachinegunManiac:

That thing will never be elected in any office other than NY, MA, DC, or CA.




Put Washington State on the list. Thanks to election-rigging, corrupt King County (Seattle), she'd definitely be elected to office here.



Don't forget Illinois. Whats up with the Monica Lewinsky scandal making traditional housewives admire her as the article states ? My mom and aunt thought she was weak and stupid for staying with him after all that.
Link Posted: 8/9/2005 6:44:38 PM EDT
08 will be the end of the liberal party as we know it. They are just too stupid to realize it.

Those basterds are digging themselves deeper and deeper into the shit pool they created. Real America has awaken. The Libs still don't get it. People are communicating more than ever. They can run whoever they want and the results will be the same. We'll be red and they'll still be blue.
Link Posted: 8/9/2005 7:01:24 PM EDT
no!
Link Posted: 8/9/2005 7:02:32 PM EDT
Don't forget, Lazio only lost because he didn't have the PR campaign that Hillary had. Literally, a month or two before the elections, it looked like his commercial spots and such practically disappeared...

Had he had a better PR campaign (i.e. Hi! I'm Rick Lazio, and I'm running for Senator...and I'm not Hillary Clinton!), he probably would have won.

I think.

NYC was pretty much Hillary's domain, and it's a huge, huge chunk of population in this state
Link Posted: 8/9/2005 7:04:29 PM EDT
Until you see her competition, I doubt the 52% voting rate.
Link Posted: 8/9/2005 7:05:56 PM EDT

Originally Posted By MachinegunManiac:
Bullshit. America hates her. You have to keep in mind the state of affairs NY is. NY would elect Saddam Hussein if he were running. Too many morons, gangbangers, and the loony left.

According to the DU that I checked on one occassion to see what the fuss was about, "she's just not likeable".

That thing will never be elected in any office other than NY, MA, DC, or CA.



The large population of liberal democrats in NYC, the surrounding suburbs and western NY are the voters who elected Hillary Clinton. The rest of upstate NY is mostly red counties but sparsely populated. Even the Borough of Richmond (Staten Island) in NYC voted for Bush in 2004. BTW gang bangers don't vote.

Link Posted: 8/9/2005 7:07:11 PM EDT

(52 percent of voters would be likely to vote for her)


HUGE load a' BULLSHIT.
Link Posted: 8/9/2005 7:07:17 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Evil_Ed:
NYC was pretty much Hillary's domain, and it's a huge, huge chunk of population in this state


You don't have to remind us. NYC is the source of all problems in this state(debt, crime, etc).
Link Posted: 8/9/2005 7:09:25 PM EDT
This country is not ready for a woman President, Hillar doesnt have a chance and neither does Condi.

If the Manchurian candidate runs, he'll probably win and that scares me more than Hillary.
Link Posted: 8/9/2005 7:11:28 PM EDT
39% would never vote for her. Hell, I might date Courtney Love but I would NEVER date Elton John.
Link Posted: 8/9/2005 7:13:02 PM EDT
Weren't 52 percent of people supposed to vote for Kerry?

The media said that Bush wasn't going to be reelected because everyone hated him but he won by a landslide.(or as the left says, "stolen")

This country won't give 52 percent for ANY democrat now.
Link Posted: 8/9/2005 7:13:43 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/9/2005 7:14:56 PM EDT by 22bad]
about six months ago we had a troll here telling us she wouldn't even run
I told him he didn't know any better than I did if she was going to run or not

seems like some people just like to make wild claims and speculations about what WON'T happen
Link Posted: 8/9/2005 7:16:17 PM EDT
Link Posted: 8/9/2005 7:17:48 PM EDT
Link Posted: 8/9/2005 7:54:16 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Aimless:
I don't see her winning nationally, but I would not underestimate her. She's 100 times the danger the dipshit the Democrats ran last time was. She'll do much better at turning out Democrat voters and she's a smart, sneaky little so and so.



I really don't see her getting elected. If Pirro kicks her butt for the senate race she will be finished and this discussion will be moot.
Link Posted: 8/9/2005 7:55:19 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Aimless:
I don't see her winning nationally, but I would not underestimate her. She's 100 times the danger the dipshit the Democrats ran last time was. She'll do much better at turning out Democrat voters and she's a smart, sneaky little so and so.





+1
Link Posted: 8/9/2005 7:59:49 PM EDT
Link Posted: 8/9/2005 8:02:14 PM EDT
While the color map makes a good point, Kerry ALMOST stole the election, were it not for about 5 counties in ONE STATE. The color map can make one get very, very careless and think there is no chance of a Hillary win, and you would be very wrong. She will have 99 percent of the mainstream media, 99 percent of all college professors backing her run, and it might be enough to tip the balance. You have been warned. Do not get complacent, she could very well win, even though the folks in Oklahoma and the other red states hate her. They hated Kerry too, and he ALMOST won.
Link Posted: 8/9/2005 8:05:34 PM EDT

Originally Posted By MachinegunManiac:
Bullshit. America hates her. You have to keep in mind the state of affairs NY Cityis.



Fixed.
Link Posted: 8/9/2005 8:08:55 PM EDT

Originally Posted By MachinegunManiac:
Bullshit. America hates her. You have to keep in mind the state of affairs NY is. NY would elect Saddam Hussein if he were running. Too many morons, gangbangers, and the loony left.

According to the DU that I checked on one occassion to see what the fuss was about, "she's just not likeable".

That thing will never be elected in any office other than NY, MA, DC, or CA.



[Darth Vader] You underestimate the power of the Dark Side [/Darth Vader]

The liberals would vote for Charles Manson as long as he is running againt a Repub.
Link Posted: 8/9/2005 8:09:05 PM EDT
Bill Clinton is far more popular and likable than Hillary (I hate them both but even I will admit Bill is far more likable). Ol' Slick Willie himself could never get 52% of the vote. So explain to me how this cunt is going to do it?

She might, might win 4-5 states. That's top end. She doesn't have a hope in hell of getting elected on a national scale. Hell, she couldn't have even got elected to the senate had she not left Arkansas and moved to one of the biggest liberal cesspools in America.
Link Posted: 8/9/2005 8:10:00 PM EDT

Originally Posted By bigscrun:
She is still unelectable..............

The GOP spin machine will have an unlimited amout of money to fight her, people will see the bullshit. Plus Condi Rice takes away the minority vote...........



Thanks for the laugh
Link Posted: 8/9/2005 8:12:41 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Charging_Handle:
Ol' Slick Willie himself could never get 52% of the vote. So explain to me how this cunt is going to do it?



The leftist liberal media has given up all pretense of impartiality
they will lie and cover up for her so much it will make rathergate look like an honest mistake
we may not get our news from abc, cbs, cnn, pbs but I asked around, many people still do........
Link Posted: 8/9/2005 8:14:14 PM EDT
Link Posted: 8/9/2005 8:15:13 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/9/2005 9:17:02 PM EDT by WildBoar]

Originally Posted By bigscrun:
She is still unelectable..............

The GOP spin machine will have an unlimited amout of money to fight her, people will see the bullshit. Plus Condi Rice takes away the minority vote...........



Condi wont get the minority vote. The democrats have spun free thinking blacks into labels such as uncle toms and such.
Link Posted: 8/9/2005 8:20:49 PM EDT
Unfortunately, there will be a large "first woman president" factor. People are mostly morons, and will actually feel that by helping to elect the first woman presindent, they will somehow be a part of a "historic event". Undecided women, especially, could tip the balance. I fear that she does have a chance.
Link Posted: 8/9/2005 8:26:39 PM EDT
It would truly be what all the guys in the Survival forum are waiting for TEOTWAWKI.
Link Posted: 8/9/2005 8:27:04 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/9/2005 8:27:44 PM EDT by 22bad]

Originally Posted By bigscrun:

Originally Posted By 22bad:

Originally Posted By bigscrun:
She is still unelectable..............

The GOP spin machine will have an unlimited amout of money to fight her, people will see the bullshit. Plus Condi Rice takes away the minority vote...........



Thanks for the laugh



you don't think so............? why?



You would discount the threat of a woman that has avoided conviction through an almost uncountable number of investigations
Filegate, Travelgate, Whitewatergate, I can't even keep up with them anymore
How about the one where a security guard on staff at the white house that no one knew
how he got there or who hired him(the only connection found was to hillary)remember what he did?
ILLEGALLY ORDERED THE FBI FILES ON REPUBLICANS, no one was even charged with that one.......again
and how are the spineless "republicans" going to fight her with the media lying to support her........
Link Posted: 8/9/2005 8:29:29 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/9/2005 8:29:50 PM EDT by bigscrun]
Link Posted: 8/9/2005 8:32:09 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Keith_J:
39% would never vote for her. Hell, I might date Courtney Love but I would NEVER date Elton John.


+1
Link Posted: 8/9/2005 8:45:39 PM EDT
She will probably be the dream candidate..................


For the Republicans.

However, I would never underestimate her. She is the closest thing we have had to the "Antichrist" in recent history.

Just ask Vince Foster, McDougle, Ron Brown or any of the of other henchmen that have gone to meet their master.


A "perfect storm" of a good Hillary campaign, and a bad Republican candidate rocked with scandal, death, etc. could put her in the White House. (That's when I will buy a ranch in the middle of no where, dig a shelter, and start surfing the Survival forum!

A cage match between her and Condi would be sweet!

No, not an election, I said a Cage Match.
Link Posted: 8/9/2005 8:54:03 PM EDT
Condi is smart, but you are kidding yourself, she has no charisma, and charisma is important to win elections, and can negate a lot of negatives -- just ask Bill Clinton.
Link Posted: 8/9/2005 8:55:23 PM EDT

Originally Posted By BillofRights:
She will probably be the dream candidate..................


For the Republicans.

However, I would never underestimate her. She is the closest thing we have had to the "Antichrist" in recent history.
snip




Try and remember - this bitch has never had to hold her own infront of unconvinced voters yet. She has been shielded in debate after debate, in question after question, by complicitous media scumbags. This will not be the case in 2008 when the national media, who likes to elect a hero then tear him to pieces, only to rebuild him again, will attack with claws out.

Hillary can't survive such a shredding. She'll fall apart under the pressure, and you'll get a "Dean" moment out her - she can't resist sounding like a shrill cunt when she goes off on one of her virulently socialist tears.

Fuck her. I wanna be there when she blows it, so I can laugh out loud at the TV. Hope I'm not working! Reminds me of the "Dead Zone" character holding up the kid as the Human Shield...
Link Posted: 8/9/2005 9:07:24 PM EDT

Originally Posted By samsong:

Originally Posted By BillofRights:
She will probably be the dream candidate..................


For the Republicans.

However, I would never underestimate her. She is the closest thing we have had to the "Antichrist" in recent history.
snip




Try and remember - this bitch has never had to hold her own infront of unconvinced voters yet. She has been shielded in debate after debate, in question after question, by complicitous media scumbags. This will not be the case in 2008 when the national media, who likes to elect a hero then tear him to pieces, only to rebuild him again, will attack with claws out.

Hillary can't survive such a shredding. She'll fall apart under the pressure, and you'll get a "Dean" moment out her - she can't resist sounding like a shrill cunt when she goes off on one of her virulently socialist tears.

Fuck her. I wanna be there when she blows it, so I can laugh out loud at the TV. Hope I'm not working! Reminds me of the "Dead Zone" character holding up the kid as the Human Shield...




Well, I hope you are right, but remember, she has already said " I am against Illegal Immigrants" And she has said "...I think we should give undocumented workers a College Education" Like her dear hubby, there is literally no limit to the lies she will tell. And the media will never call her on it.

Personnaly I don't think Hitlery has much charisma either. Our biggest threat is John Edwards or somebody like him. Don't count out Dean either. He has charisma. Phycho Charisma, but charisma nonetheless. If he can be coached to control it, he will be a force.

Who will oppose them? Neil? I hope not. Rudy? He's no friend of ours.
Link Posted: 8/9/2005 9:12:39 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/9/2005 9:13:10 PM EDT by jkstexas2001]
Rudy is vehemently anti-2nd amendment, and would split the Republican vote. I can easily see the RNC pushing him as a candidate, and disgusted gun-owners voting for a third-party candidate, making a Hillary election a shoe-in. If you say it can't happen -- remember what happenned to Bush Sr when Perot ran - Bill Clinton won because the opposition vote was split. Gun owners would shoot themselves in the foot by opposing Rudy, and end up getting someone worse than Rudy into office. I can easily see that happenning.
Link Posted: 8/9/2005 9:13:51 PM EDT

Originally Posted By double_wielder:
It would truly be what all the guys in the Survival forum are waiting for TEOTWAWKI.



That pretty well nails it. Hitlery as president=SHTF
Link Posted: 8/9/2005 9:20:12 PM EDT
I say again: Who will oppose her?


My pick? Condi as Pres. Colin as VP. The (semi) black dream team. Colin is pro affirmative action, but I would just fevently pray that Condi survives.
Link Posted: 8/9/2005 9:23:57 PM EDT

Originally Posted By jkstexas2001:
Rudy is vehemently anti-2nd amendment, and would split the Republican vote. I can easily see the RNC pushing him as a candidate, and disgusted gun-owners voting for a third-party candidate, making a Hillary election a shoe-in. If you say it can't happen -- remember what happenned to Bush Sr when Perot ran - Bill Clinton won because the opposition vote was split. Gun owners would shoot themselves in the foot by opposing Rudy, and end up getting someone worse than Rudy into office. I can easily see that happenning.



If it comes down to Hillary or Rudy, screw it I won't care at that point. If he gets the Republican nomination, Republicans deserve to lose the presidency and it might shake them out of their current majority slumber.
Link Posted: 8/9/2005 9:27:33 PM EDT

Originally Posted By LANCEMAN:

Originally Posted By jkstexas2001:
Rudy is vehemently anti-2nd amendment, and would split the Republican vote. I can easily see the RNC pushing him as a candidate, and disgusted gun-owners voting for a third-party candidate, making a Hillary election a shoe-in. If you say it can't happen -- remember what happenned to Bush Sr when Perot ran - Bill Clinton won because the opposition vote was split. Gun owners would shoot themselves in the foot by opposing Rudy, and end up getting someone worse than Rudy into office. I can easily see that happenning.



If it comes down to Hillary or Rudy, screw it I won't care at that point. If he gets the Republican nomination, Republicans deserve to lose the presidency and it might shake them out of their current majority slumber.



I would agree with your sentiment - and both of us would fall right into the hands of bringing the Hillary Clinton administration into power..... it would be a lose/lose situation for gun owners.
Link Posted: 8/9/2005 9:48:08 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/9/2005 9:50:18 PM EDT by 22bad]

Originally Posted By bigscrun:

Originally Posted By 22bad:

Originally Posted By bigscrun:

Originally Posted By 22bad:

Originally Posted By bigscrun:
She is still unelectable..............

The GOP spin machine will have an unlimited amout of money to fight her, people will see the bullshit. Plus Condi Rice takes away the minority vote...........



Thanks for the laugh



you don't think so............? why?



You would discount the threat of a woman that has avoided conviction through an almost uncountable number of investigations
Filegate, Travelgate, Whitewatergate, I can't even keep up with them anymore
How about the one where a security guard on staff at the white house that no one knew
how he got there or who hired him(the only connection found was to hillary)remember what he did?
ILLEGALLY ORDERED THE FBI FILES ON REPUBLICANS, no one was even charged with that one.......again
and how are the spineless "republicans" going to fight her with the media lying to support her........



Those were all Klinton era scandals covered up by the Klintoons...........you honestly don't the the GOP would take the gloves off and handle her.



What gloves? they have the house, senate and the white house wtf are they getting done?
Did you see the impeachment, wtf? an agreement to only call three witnesses?
Did you see waxman completely give barr the runaround trying to get documents from clinton?
(there are a hundred other examples of them laying low, playing it safe.....and losing)

the republicans are either complicit or incompetent..........
I am just stating my opinion about what I have seen, YMMV

That is why I like Ann and Hannity so much, at least they TRY to stand up to the libs
Link Posted: 8/9/2005 11:37:45 PM EDT
Check this out.............

Clinton Admin. Knew of 9/11 Hijackers
Aug. 9, 2005
With Carl Limbacher and NewsMax.com Staff
www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/8/9/120750.shtml
More than a year before the 9/11 attacks, Clinton administration intelligence officials had identified four of the 19 9/11 hijackers as a terrorist threat - including al-Qaida team leader Mohamed Atta and his partner Marwan al-Shehhi, whose planes destroyed the World Trade Center and killed over 2,700 people.

But the critical information was not acted on, at least in part, because of prohibitions against intelligence sharing implemented by former Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick, who was reportedly installed in her post at the insistence of then-first lady Hillary Clinton.

In the summer of 2000, a military team, known as Able Danger, had prepared a chart that included visa photographs of Atta and al Shehhi and recommended to the military's Special Operations Command that the information be shared with the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Rep. Curt Weldon and a former intelligence official told the New York Times.
"We knew these were bad guys, and we wanted to do something about them," the former intelligence official said.

However, the recommendation was rejected and the information was not shared, in part, said the Times, because the four suspects had entered the United States on valid entry visas.

But Rep. Weldon and the unnamed intelligence official also cited what the paper described as "a sense of discomfort common before Sept. 11 about sharing intelligence information with a law enforcement agency."

In fact, such intelligence sharing was strictly prohibited under Ms. Gorelick's policy, known at the Justice Department as "The Wall," which, in the spring of 2000, had also prevented the CIA from tipping off the FBI that two additional 9/11 hijackers, Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi, had entered the country.

Al-Midhar and al-Hamzi were identified by the Able Danger team as well, the Times said.

In its final report, however, the 9/11 Commission made no mention of the fact that the Clinton administration had identified key members of the hijack team, even though, the Times noted, that information had been shared with 9/11 Commission members.

The account by Weldon and the Times intelligence source is the first assertion that Atta and al Shehhi - who caused the most destruction in the worst attack ever suffered on U.S. soil - had been identified by the Clinton administration.

In testimony before the 9/11 Commission last year, then-Attorney General John Ashcroft blasted Gorelick's "Wall," saying, "The single greatest structural cause for September 11 was the wall that segregated criminal investigators and intelligence agents"

"[Ms. Gorelick] built that wall," said Ashcroft, "through a March 1995 memo."

The Gorelick memo stipulated, in part:

"We believe that it is prudent to establish a set of instructions that will more clearly separate the counterintelligence investigation from the more limited, but continued, criminal investigations. These procedures, which go beyond what is legally required, will prevent any risk of creating an unwarranted appearance that [the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act] is being used to avoid procedural safeguards which would apply in a criminal investigation."

Ms. Gorelick is expected to be a leading candidate for attorney general should Mrs. Clinton win the 2008 presidential election.
Link Posted: 8/10/2005 1:20:34 AM EDT
Wouldnt vote for her for President ever.


Hated her husband and hate her.
Link Posted: 8/10/2005 1:52:03 AM EDT
Let's all hope not. If she does win we are all going to big bite.

Max
Link Posted: 8/10/2005 2:37:30 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/10/2005 2:39:04 AM EDT by jkstexas2001]

Originally Posted By 22bad:

Originally Posted By bigscrun:

Originally Posted By 22bad:

Originally Posted By bigscrun:

Originally Posted By 22bad:

Originally Posted By bigscrun:
She is still unelectable..............

The GOP spin machine will have an unlimited amout of money to fight her, people will see the bullshit. Plus Condi Rice takes away the minority vote...........



Thanks for the laugh



you don't think so............? why?



You would discount the threat of a woman that has avoided conviction through an almost uncountable number of investigations
Filegate, Travelgate, Whitewatergate, I can't even keep up with them anymore
How about the one where a security guard on staff at the white house that no one knew
how he got there or who hired him(the only connection found was to hillary)remember what he did?
ILLEGALLY ORDERED THE FBI FILES ON REPUBLICANS, no one was even charged with that one.......again
and how are the spineless "republicans" going to fight her with the media lying to support her........



Those were all Klinton era scandals covered up by the Klintoons...........you honestly don't the the GOP would take the gloves off and handle her.



What gloves? they have the house, senate and the white house wtf are they getting done?
Did you see the impeachment, wtf? an agreement to only call three witnesses?
Did you see waxman completely give barr the runaround trying to get documents from clinton?
(there are a hundred other examples of them laying low, playing it safe.....and losing)

the republicans are either complicit or incompetent..........
I am just stating my opinion about what I have seen, YMMV

That is why I like Ann and Hannity so much, at least they TRY to stand up to the libs



[The Republican Party Leadership (and I am a Republican and vote so I can say this) has the testicularity of a one-balled field mouse. They refuse to act like the majority party. Someone slipped in some night with a razor and emasculated the lot of them. They found their balls on a silver tray on the night stand when they woke up, put a ribbon on them, and had them hand delivered to Ted Kennedy and Charlie Shumer. Even Hannity is frustrated with the the sheer sissiness of Frist and others.

The republican leadership is just treading water. When the Dems get their shit together, and they will do so soon, we are f-cked.
Link Posted: 8/10/2005 9:26:50 PM EDT

Originally Posted By jkstexas2001:
The republican leadership is just treading water. When the Dems get their shit together, and they will do so soon, we are f-cked.



After the last election they decided that God was their new best friend..........they already woke up
Link Posted: 8/10/2005 9:28:45 PM EDT

Originally Posted By tyman:
Wouldnt vote for her for President ever.


Hated her husband and hate her.



I started voting a straight party ticket the year that clinton won............
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top