Outgoing White House adviser Karl Rove predicted Sunday that Hillary Clinton would be the Democratic nominee for president, but that she wouldn’t win because she "enters the general election campaign with the highest negatives of any candidate in the history of the Gallup Poll."
Clinton responded during Sunday’s Democratic debate by warning that anyone who wins the Democratic nomination would end up with high negatives. "The idea that you’re going to escape the Republican attack machine and not have high negatives by the time they’re through with you, I think, is just missing what’s been going on in American politics for the last 20 years," Clinton said.
Clinton said that she found it interesting that Rove is obsessed with her. "And I think the reason is because we know how to win," she said.
But some political strategists think the opposite — that Rove is trying more reverse psychology with Democrats in hopes that they reflexively rally around Clinton rather than choosing Barack Obama or John Edwards. Rove’s team used a similar strategy during the 2004 primaries when they criticized John Kerry in hopes that it would help keep Edwards from getting the nomination.
Posted by Phillip Brownlee
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- Phantom on Open thread 11/24
- Phantom on Open thread 11/24
- charleskhyter on Huckabee felt costs of campaign
- donndublin on Open thread 11/24
- Politico on Moore has had enough of House
- Pleefer on Open thread 11/24
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/24
- donndublin on Open thread 11/24
- SolDevVB on Open thread 11/24
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/24
148 Comments
There will be NO 2008 election!
http://www.thepriceofliberty.org/may.htm
America could care less what Rove/Limbaugh and others say.
Except for the 20 million plus who listen to him everyday….
26%’ers are irrelevant in todays political arena.
Ah,
But Karl Rove, the evil prince of the republican party is still one step ahead, he is using reverse-reverse psychology!
Hank
Rove is a genius at turning a positive into a negative and the media cooperates in helping him do his job. It took way too long for Americans to realize this but most of us have finally.
bushco remain the best ambassador the Democratic Party has ever had!
Rove is so convoluted, even he doesn’t know what he’s thinking!
Phantom,
When the President has a higher apporval rating than Congress, I say we go with him.
Is that what you call two faced?
Polarized?
Did anyone notice Hillary’s picture is animated on this thread? I either never noticed that or they just started doing that with her post?
Liberal Bias?
See – she just winked.
LET ME BE THE FIRST ON THIS THREAD:
It…. is…. Bush…’s… fault.
Ok, so Bush can then reply in a like manner and say that his low ratings are do completely to the negative Democratic attack maching and a liberal press.
The lack of accountability by Socialist Democrats is amazing!
Hillary’s negative ratings are not her own fault!
Dang excuses are starting before she even enters the White House!
“Clinton responded during Sunday’s Democratic debate by warning that anyone who wins the Democratic nomination would end up with high negatives. “The idea that you’re going to escape the Republican attack machine and not have high negatives by the time they’re through with you, I think, is just missing what’s been going on in American politics for the last 20 years,” Clinton said.”
America could care less what Rove/Limbaugh and others say.
Posted by: The Phantom | August 20, 2007 at 01:24 PM
Phantom how do you get to be the spokesperson for America? Does it pay well? If you are thinking of retiring anytime soon – will the opening be posted so others can apply?
“It’s all a rightwing conspiracy – my husband never had sex with that woman – no one understands Bill like I do – Jennifer who??? – wink, wink ‘thank you for your CONTINUED support of my husband, Ms Broadrick’ wink, wink, – The idea that you’re going to escape the Republican attack machine and not have high negatives by the time they’re through with you, I think, is just missing what’s been going on in American politics for the last 20 years,”
I can hardly until she adds a few more to the list.
This is exactly what I have been thinking since Hillary announced her candidacy. Most people don’t like her or hate her. She is one of the most polarizing candidates in recent memory. She represents the far-left which most Americans are uncomfortable with.
Bill hasn’t done her political career any favors and she still looks like she’s standing by her man because it will keep her in power.
Obama is one of those rare politicians who is far enough left to appease hardcore Democrats and just centered enough to be appealing to the majority of Americans. He is less rehearsed, more hopeful and less of the same old stuff Washington has given us lately.
If the Democrats nominate Hillary Clinton, she will lose. I would hate to see our chance be blown because the butt kissers in Washington feel they owe it to Hillary or because she is their poster child. You have to be able to win elections. End of story.
Republicans talking about a Democrat being too polarizing? They invented polarization! Whazzamatta- is the hardball too hard for you now?
yeah I saw that. Do I GAF about what KKKarl thinks? You know it’s funny, so many people I talk to say they’re voting for Hillary…and from Kansas of all places.
Birds of a feather….Real surprise Mom that your friends already support Hillary.
All my friends talk about Fred Thompson, Romney, and Giuliani in that order.
Everyone I talk to is concerned about:
Safety of the US.Energy independence.Being able to financially retire.Taxes being too high.Border security.Maintaining Constituional rights – especially the 2nd Amendment.
None have made up their minds this early though.
Right Wingers like to sort out all the facts first.
We’re just leaning wingers.
My friends are concerned about:
1) the cost of health care2) maintaining insurance coverage3) maintaining a job4) inflation and the cost of buying needed goods like food5) the cost of and paying for higher education
I guess that is why we vote differntly than you guys do.
Steven we are all concerned about these things we just look to different sources as the cure for these issues.
“Birds of a feather….Real surprise Mom that your friends already support Hillary.”
Any woman who doesn’t support Hillary is a traitor to her gender. That said, I think there will be a lot of traitors.
Hillary is all the things white conservative males fear most in a woman. She’s tough, smart, powerful, and she seems to be a political brawler. So far, republicans have tried all the crap they use to keep their women in line and it hasn’t worked. Recall Faux News thinking the world was coming to an end because Hillary showed cleavage.
But is Hillary electable? If she’s nominated, that will turn out the conservative base like nothing you’ve ever seen. Same with Obama. Conservatives would rather die than see a woman or a black elected president. Republicans are ALL about chauvinism and racism.
Well said ksgrm.
Getting and keeping a job is my responsibility.
Obtaining food, shelter, and clothing is my responsibility.
Working my way through college was my responsibility.
If I get a good education and work hard, then decent paying jobs with good health insurance benefits are plentiful – though you may have to relocate to find the right one.
The Government’s responsibility includes:
Defending the US – keeping us safe – including safeguarding US borders.
Setting an energy policy that will encourage private development of alternative energy here at home.
Solving the Social Security fiscal crisis, enabling people to retire before they die.
Defending and maintaining our rights of freedom.
Making government fiscally responsible, with a fair tax system that does not penalize people for working hard and being successful.
The hardcore conservative base still only counts for 28% or so of the Republican vote.
The majority of Christians are already starting to move toward the left as they see the ravages of war, environmental misuse by Republican corporations, the threat of global warming (predicted in the Bible), etc.
Christians are beginning to see past abortion and looking into their hearts to do what they know is right.
The Republicans have squandered their vote with their lies, greed, and lack of compassion for the earth and her people.
Hillary is running on the same agenda Slick Willy did and look what good Willy did for health care. Hellary will sell us down the white river quicker than you can say, throw me an oar.
Christians are beginning to see past abortion and looking into their hearts to do what they know is right.
Posted by: Michael | August 20, 2007 at 04:22 PM
Michael I’ll ask you the same question I asked Phantom this morning: How did you get the authority to speak for Christians? Is there a poll that supports this statement? If so could you post it? If not you might think about adding IMHO to your posts.
I have always looked into my heart to see what is right. I didn’t have to wait for a sign.
The dems have attempted with their lies and halftruths to change the minds of some conservative voters.
The truth that most dems can’t recognize is that conservatives don’t vote as a block. I look at issues, weigh the options and then vote for the candidate who will address the majority of these in the way I feel would be right.
Memo to KKKarl – pot, meet kettle.
LOL I never said these people were my friends. they’re just normal ole folks who I happen to talk to throughout the day.
Your friends are NOT normal?
:)
“Steven we are all concerned about these things we just look to different sources as the cure for these issues.”
Yes, I am sure. For number 5, my kids are s-m-a-r-t, so we looking to scholarships to help with the college expenses. No student loan debt as large as a house mortgage for them, or me.
Never paid a penny of student loan debt myself. Scholarships and worked when in college and graduate school.
“The majority of Christians are already starting to move toward the left as they see the ravages of war, environmental misuse by Republican corporations, the threat of global warming (predicted in the Bible), etc.
Christians are beginning to see past abortion and looking into their hearts to do what they know is right.”
So Michael, have you personally declared abortion insignificant or is it just the evil that should be overlooked so the Democrat party can gain Christian converts?
Also wondering when corporations could begin to register party affiliation.
Well Steven I am glad you have never had to look at student loan debt. It is a real eyeopener. You are finally out of school and ready to go to work and 6 months later the bills come in.
Two of my sons had loans the third was in the Navy for 10 years and used his GI Bill to pay his expenses.
Well, from my undergrad days and first year in law school, I had accumulated some debt from student loans, even though I was working, had some merit based scholarships, etc. Fortunately for me, some part (roughly 45%) was canceled as the result of my military service.
I remember in the 70’s there was a student loan program where certain fields, like healthcare, if the person volunteered to relocate to a rural area where healthcare professionals were needed, then a certain portion of their student loans would be canceled.
Is there still such a program today? If not, then why not? It seems to me that would be a win-win for the student just graduated and the area with the need for healthcare professionals.
The Right Wingnuts better it all the “far-leftist liberal” rhetoric out of their systems when talking about Senator Clinton. You simply make yourselve sound ridiculoous.
Force yourself to look at the Democratict Party’s contenders. Dennis Kucinich, now *there’s* a true liberal. Hillary (as was her husband) is marginally progressive; center-center-left at the most extreme. She’s got the support of big NY business and gets lots of money from Big Pharma and insurance companies.
Every Hillary negative is out. And she’s countered them all. All the Republics need to do is rehash Vince Foster and Filegate to convince the American people they’re ten years behind the issues facing the nation and the world *today* and in the future.
Barak Obama is an inspiring visionary who could capture the nation’s imagination the way JFK did in 1960. John Edwards is a passionate advocate. Democrats I talk with would be pleased with any of the three. It’s an embarassment of riches for the Democrats.
For the Republic Party, just embarassments.
The American people(voters) from a broad spectrum, Democrat, Republican and Independent will not vote for Hillary.
She will get the Democratic Nomination, because of the Clinton Political Machine. If offered the V.P spot, Barak Hussien Obama will not accept. Or, if he by some political miracle gets the Party nomination, will not offer Hillary, the V.P. spot.
It won’t be due to prejudice against the other’s race or gender. It will be because of their egos.
Outlander
No Christians aren’t ignoring abortion but they are starting to see the futility of legislating abortion away (women will always find ways to terminate their unborn children if that is what they want).
America has been so polarized of late that it’s not too hard to see Corporations running along party lines. Does Halliburton seem like a corporation largely run by Democrats?
How about Exxon? Was that a company run by a Democrat?
You act like you don’t know what I’m talking about but that seems pretty disingenous to me.
Consider that Christians go with their heart and their reason, I think it is becoming pretty obvious which of the parties comes closer to what Jesus taught.
As to Rove, I saw him on all the Sunday morning political talk shows and after the second time I had a vision. I saw a sixth grade spelling bee and the moderator said “The word is “Delusional”. The student then replies, “Delusional…. R O V E….. Delusional!”.
I have no doubt that he is practicing reverse physiology and to a point he is right. Depending on the GOP candidate, who there really are few that could be favorable over a few of the Democrat candidate. As to a swing vote, Hillary is the one that most moderate Republican just can NOT vote for. Rove knows this is an effective tactic since it worked so well with Kerry. Edwards was seen as the one Democrat that could unseat G.W. Bush in 2004. So the GOP went after Kerry to get the Democrats to throw in with Kerry over Edwards. It worked and G.W remained in office, will it work again? I guess it depends on the American people, are we wiser and more aware then we were in 2004?
LongtimePoster, JFK won the Presidency by only 100,000 votes! They came from Chicago, with many of the votes believed to have been provided by Organize Crime Mobsters at Joesph Kennedy’s request. Enough time has passed since the Kennedy Presidency for this type of information be provided to the public.
The Republicans did not challenge the votes. History shows, Nixon didn’t want to put the Country thru a challenge. That may explain why Republicans decided not to concede to Democrats in 2000.
There is no doubt that Rove will be working behind the scenes for the GOP and probably Rudy since he could not convince Jeb Bush to run.
“LongtimePoster, JFK won the Presidency by only 100,000 votes! They came from Chicago, with many of the votes believed to have been provided by Organize Crime Mobsters at Joesph Kennedy’s request. Enough time has passed since the Kennedy Presidency for this type of information be provided to the public.”
Hey I was in on that election and I can assure you that there no mobsters involved. Only Richard J Daley and the Catholic Church in Chicago!
It’s all Rove’s fault.
No, it’s all Bush’s fault.
No, it’s never Hillary’s fault. She’s so darn like able and cuddly, and cute, and chesty now too!
How can you NOT love Hillary?
I cannot imagine Nixon not wanting to put the country through any vote count challenge. After all, Nixon had to be forced to resign the presidency. But it took the Supreme Court to anoint GW Bush as president.
Instead of uniting the country, like Bush promised to do, he polarized it even more, with the help of Rove and Cheney.
I don’t expect politics to ever be civil again. Too many egos on both sides of the aisle will not allow compromise. Without compromise there is no governing.
That is one thing about Barack Obama that is refreshing. He is known to work with his adversaries and get something done. I agree Hillary is polarizing but I also know that Bill Clinton is Hillary’s best asset. The American people still like Bill, in spite of all the hearings and impeachment brought on by the Republicans – and the American people do blame the Republicans for all that harassing of Bill Clinton.
This time around, with the help of Ted Haggard’s sexual and drug escapade and Pat Robertson’s senility, the Christian Conservatives do not carry as much political weight as they once did. The average American wants a good job, pay his bills and to not be told what to do with his personal life.
I am supporting Obama because I think he will represent the changes we need. Clinton is too chummy with the caviar and wine class for me. I want a President that BBQs and vacations in Yellowstone. Not one that sips and vacations in Martha’s Vinyard. But if she is nominated I will vote for her. Remember that the WORST Democrat is better than the BEST Republican!
Ted who? What office did he run for? Did he hold a public office? Pat Robertson, who in the world is he? Did you mean Pat Roberts?
As for Bill coming with Hillary, they don’t live together now, what makes you think he will move to the white house? We saw how much we got out of Hill when Bill was prez.
ksgrm
You seem kind of cranky today.
Settle down.
Those were leaders in the radical Christian right movement. They were bona fide politicians but they did not hold public office.
Another Right Wing lie, courtesy of KSGrm. Bill and Hillary DO live together, but like most couples with diverse careers, they do not spend that much time under the same roof. Bill has his career – Hillary has hers.
Because a married couple spend time apart does NOT make them separated. If that was the the case, a whole bunch of high-powered married couples could be considered “separated.”
Just another “Rush and Sean” talking point from the Right Wing sheep.
PS
ksgrm
You are losing your credibility with your wild statements and accusations.
Overcoming negatives is one thing. The real question I see is; can Mrs Clinton overcome the “shrill” factor? Whenever she raises her voice, it’s like fingernails raking a chalkboard.
Mrs. Clinton could be our secret weapon foreign relations weapon though. I can just hear Iran’s president Ahmadinejad. “OK, we will destroy the nukes, anything, just don’t let her shout again”!
At least you were able to say something funny (if not exactly nice)about Hillary.
I personally think that she is the best person to redirect the course of America away from war to a peacetime economy once again.
Aren’t you tired of all the people killing and being killed thanks to failed foreign policies?
That is one thing about Barack Obama that is refreshing. He is known to work with his adversaries and get something done. maidmarion
Can you name one time Barack worked with his adversaries to get something done? When and what did he get done?
The American people still like Bill Maidmarian
Who? What are his polls?
I know many that dispise him.
Michael, why would Hillary redirect the country away from war when SHE voted FOR war?
What’s Hillary’s foreign policy position?
Can you name one time in the last seven years that George W Bush has worked with his adversaries to get something done?
“I know many that dispise him.”
On the day he was impeached, Bill Clinton’s approval rating was 67% – more than twice that of George W Bush currently.
Bush has the lowest SUSTAINED poll numbers in history.
Hillary Clinton is too close to a Socialist/Communist for me to feel comfortable enough to vote for.
She absolutely loathes the military and carries way too much baggage (hubby, past)
When reading what those who worked close to her for years say…she is not one to be trusted, in my humblist of humble opinions.
What’s your source Clark?
67% rating? BS.
As pathetic as it is, I think that onlu algore can win for the dems. I doubt though that he will be riding to the rescue in his private jet or his caravan of limos in the near future. :)
180*
Can you name one time in the last seven years that George W Bush has worked with his adversaries to get something done?
Posted by: WSClark | August 20, 2007 at 07:19 PM
Actually, many examples Clark.
But the question on the table is the assertion that Obama has done this.
Can’t answer the question, can you?
Damn Hillary supporters, can’t answer questions about why she should be President!
Everything is Bush’s fault.
That’s not gonna win you the election this time either!
Guess what, you can’t beat Bush in 2008 – he ain’t running guys!
I was just waiting for all these wunnerful examples of the good things Hillary had done in Congress, the great bills she has introduced and passed, and all we here is:
It’s Bush’s fault!
“hear”
“Actually, many examples Clark.”
Name one.
Max
Hillary did not vote for war. There was never a declaration of war.
She also made it clear in her speech at the time that she was not giving Bush a blanket approval for anything that he wanted.
Look it up or continue spreading falsehoods.
“What’s your source Clark?”
Look it up.
Baseless assertions without any foundation in fact Clark/Michael. You can’t cite your sources cause you are making it up. There’s nothing for me to find.
Great arguments guys.
Swayed a lot of voters with your posts today.
Congratulations.
I don’t need to sway any voters. They are already lining up.
BTW who are the Republicans going to nominate that has any chance at all of winning the election.
It’s been asked before but there have been no Republican takers (let’s see, there was one…someone said Ron Paul).
This dubya s. clark person can’t really be as obtuse as he seems, can he?
180*
http://clinton.senate.gov/speeches/iraq_101002.html
“My vote is not, however, a vote for any new doctrine of pre-emption, or for uni-lateralism, or for the arrogance of American power or purpose — all of which carry grave dangers for our nation, for the rule of international law and for the peace and security of people throughout the world.”Sen. Hillary Clinton, Oct 10, 2002
I hear the wind from cowards running away….
and the typing from those desparate to find something good Obama and Hillary have done….
Sorry, it was up to 73% – not 67%.
My bad.
(AllPolitics, December 20, 1998) — In the wake of the House of Representatives’ approval of two articles of impeachment, Bill Clinton’s approval rating has jumped 10 points to 73 percent, the latest CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll shows.
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/20/impeachment.poll/
That took 10 seconds using Google to prove my point.
Nice try, idiots.
So Max, now that you can see that you have not posted the truth, would you consider giving us an apology?
Max:
A simple “I was wrong and you were right will suffice.”
I hear the wind from cowards running away….Max
Oops, must have been the back door hitting Max in the ass as he ran away!
End-of Presidency Job Approval Ratings
Bill Clinton (2001) 65%Ronald Reagan (1989) 64Dwight Eisenhower (1961) 59John F. Kennedy (1963) 63George Bush (1993) 56Gerald Ford (1977) 53Lyndon Johnson (1969) 49Jimmy Carter (1981) 34Richard Nixon (1974) 24
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/DailyNews/poll_clintonlegacy010117.html
What will George WMD Bush’ final numbers be?
Can he beat Nixon to the basement?
It’s Hillary that’s running now guys.
Hillary is the subject of this post, not Bill.
And no one answered my questions yet.
I’ll come back later and anxiously await the responses. Right.
Questions were about Hillary and Obama – in case ya forgot.
ksgrm – I was referring to the Christian conservatives and you surely know who Ted Haggard and Pat Robertson (and no I did not mean Pat Roberts). If you don’t know these two people, then you obviously don’t know know too much about the Christian Conservatives and their so-called political power.
My point was, if you would read instead of criticizing what you don’t understand – was that the Christian Conservative group has had their own problems with their own key leaders and the rest of the American voters are tired of this group preaching and being holier-than-thou with the rest of us.
And the Clintons are no worse than any other high-profile couple. What I find interesting is that the Clintons are still married and the Republicans who were pointing their fingers at Bill all had their own mistresses and multiple marriages on their resume. And exactly what higher ground are the Republicans on in the morals arena?
Newt Gingrich, Rush Limbaugh, Henry Hyde, and hell even Bob Dole has a divorce on his record – so why put down the Clintons?
That is what will bring down the Republicans – that smug, arrogance that Bush possesses everytime he tries to give a speech.
http://clinton.senate.gov/speeches/iraq_101002.htmlEven though the resolution before the Senate is not as strong as I would like in requiring the diplomatic route first and placing highest priority on a simple, clear requirement for unlimited inspections, I will take the President at his word that he will try hard to pass a UN resolution and will seek to avoid war, if at all possible.”Sen. Hillary Clinton, Oct 10, 2002
Barach Obama worked with his adversaries in the Illinois legislature constantly. He is admired by members of both parties in Illinois.
RAther than attacking the man, why don’t you do some research and see what he is about – or would that ruin your ranking in the GOP?
67% rating? BS.
Posted by: Max | August 20, 2007 at 07:24 PM
What was that about bullshit, Max?
“You can’t cite your sources cause you are making it up. There’s nothing for me to find.”
And you were saying, Max?
Max
It seems to me you have no credibility here. You lied about Hillary and refuse to apologize for lying.
You have ranted on but have provided no substance.
How old are you anyway? IMO you appear to be pretty immature.
I wonder how ‘ol Al Gore managed to squander all that love?
“Barach Obama worked with his adversaries in the Illinois legislature constantly. He is admired by members of both parties in Illinois.”
Substitute Bush for Obama and Texas for Illinois and that’s what they were saying in 2000.
Substitute Bush for Obama and Texas for Illinois and that’s what they were saying in 2000.Posted by: outlander | August 20, 2007 at 08:29 PM
And substitute Augustus Stupidus for Bush and Barrack Obama for Obama and your comparison kinda goes to hell.
Ain’t no stupid like Bush stupid.
LOL
And how is that bi-partisanship working out for Bush since January 2001, Outlander?
Non-existent, I would say.
The “Uniter” turned out to be a “Divider” after all.
You Bush deadenders ain’t gonna like 2008. Not only are the Democrats gonna run against Bush, so are the Republicans.
What’s gotta hurt most, though, is that the Democrats are gonna run against Bush and WIN DOIN” IT. In fact, the Republican candidate’ll run against Bush too, but it won’t be enough.
OUCH, LOL
They ain’t gonna be much love flowin’ Crawford way next fall.
Pedant: It seems you bring as little to the table as Obama and Edsards and Mrs. Clinton have in relevant experience. Are they really the best the Dems have to offer?
Thank you Dems not running anyone qualified. You’ve let the Republicans into the race, when they really have no business there. Just like 2000.
“End-of Presidency Job Approval Ratings
Bill Clinton (2001) 65%Ronald Reagan (1989) 64Dwight Eisenhower (1961) 59John F. Kennedy (1963) 63George Bush (1993) 56Gerald Ford (1977) 53Lyndon Johnson (1969) 49Jimmy Carter (1981) 34Richard Nixon (1974) 24
It is really ashamed that Reagan is so high on that list. If anything he is the one who started the Republicans down the path to Hell. I will be glad next year when his era comes to an end and his agenda is finally buried with him. On the other hand Eisenhower is the only Republican outside of Lincoln that I would vote for today. Ike put the country above his party and its nutty stupid base. Ike said “we can do it” and he did it.
“End-of Presidency Job Approval Ratings
Bill Clinton (2001) 65%Ronald Reagan (1989) 64Dwight Eisenhower (1961) 59John F. Kennedy (1963) 63George Bush (1993) 56Gerald Ford (1977) 53Lyndon Johnson (1969) 49Jimmy Carter (1981) 34Richard Nixon (1974) 24
It is really ashamed that Reagan is so high on that list. If anything he is the one who started the Republicans down the path to Hell. I will be glad next year when his era comes to an end and his agenda is finally buried with him. On the other hand Eisenhower is the only Republican outside of Lincoln that I would vote for today. Ike put the country above his party and its nutty stupid base. Ike said “we can do it” and he did it.
“End-of Presidency Job Approval Ratings
Bill Clinton (2001) 65%Ronald Reagan (1989) 64Dwight Eisenhower (1961) 59John F. Kennedy (1963) 63George Bush (1993) 56Gerald Ford (1977) 53Lyndon Johnson (1969) 49Jimmy Carter (1981) 34Richard Nixon (1974) 24
It is really ashamed that Reagan is so high on that list. If anything he is the one who started the Republicans down the path to Hell. I will be glad next year when his era comes to an end and his agenda is finally buried with him. On the other hand Eisenhower is the only Republican outside of Lincoln that I would vote for today. Ike put the country above his party and its nutty stupid base. Ike said “we can do it” and he did it.
“You’ve let the Republicans into the race”
Who do the Republicans have, Outlander?
Rudy “29 Hours” Guiliani?
Mitt “Ken Doll” Romney?
John “Bomb Iran” McCain?
Fred “Even my co-stars would vote against me” Thompson?
So you ass-wipes get off on voting for a candidate who won’t win your own state?
Anybody who believes these national political polls as given facts is a gullible fool and their political party deserves to lose elections basing their political strategy on them.
Editors of newspapers or television news shows who use poll results as a story are beyond gullible.
On behalf of the public they profess to serve, Pollsters are snake oil sellers of falsehoods using statistical anomalies most likely taken in areas of grossly over representative partisan political groupies.
These lying rat finks lie because Pollsters have not found a sure fire way to reach cell phone users, Internet users without compromised data and National/State no call lists render polling unrepresentative of an area.
There are 200 million cell phones that they didn’t even try. This makes the poll nothing more than a a numerical listing of fraudulent numbers.
One only needs to look at the exit Polls fiasco to get an idea that Pollsters more often than not do not have a clue what they are talking about.
They pay very well, by the way. So keep watching those polls numbers, they keep me employed.
Thank you Dems not running anyone qualified.Posted by: outlander | August 20, 2007 at 08:47 PM
LOL
Pay close attention to Hillary Clinton. That lady’s runnin’ a mighty fine campaign so far, and she’s sounded more than impressive.
Plus: 8 years in the White House, and another 10 in the Senate.
I’d call that qualified, son. Yall are gonna have to go NOTICEABLY negative to beat her.
Yall think after 8 years of Rove that’ll fly?
LOL
Is “Professional Pollster” your new nic, Republank?
I dunno WS whether the Republican nominee will win, given the negative environment. But the candidates that you listed (except Fred)tower above the top three Dems in terms of accomplishments and relevant experience. Thus, they have a chance when, if the Dems had someone of that stature running as their nominee, it would be a done deal.
LOL
8 years of no-accountability Bush, and it ain’t lookin’ like it’s gonna change much by Nov-08.
You Republicans are gonna pay full retail for Augustus Stupidus’s refusal to accept the buck.
And I do mean FULL retail.
Through the nose (it ain’t gonna be pretty).
You lose a winner take all California, you libertards are the one’s who are f-ed.Teeheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Page=/Politics/archive/200708/POL20070820a.html
What has Rudy done, except lie about his time at Ground Zero? What has Mitt done except lie bout his flip-flopping? What has McCain done since the Viet Nam War?
What has Fred done besides play himself on Law and Order?
You lose a winner take all California…Posted by: Red State Kansas | August 20, 2007 at 09:15 PM
LOL
Hell, after 8 years of Augustus Stupidus Dennis Kucinich could run with Cindy Sheehan and win California in 2008.
Goin’ away!
If they aren’t sharp enough to get it Red State, I’m not telling them.
Seems like Bill Richardson has the best looking resume of all the Democrat hopefuls… But for some strange reason, the media folks arent giving him much attention!!
Can you name one time Barack worked with his adversaries to get something done? When and what did he get done?
Posted by: Max | August 20, 2007 at 07:17 PM
Still Not Answered.
Michael, why would Hillary redirect the country away from war when SHE voted FOR war?
What’s Hillary’s foreign policy position?
Posted by: Max | August 20, 2007 at 07:19 PM
Still Not Answered
Still waiting for an answer about the 67% figure being bullshit, Max.
You first.
“Michael, why would Hillary redirect the country away from war when SHE voted FOR war?…Still Not Answered”
Posted by: Max | August 20, 2007 at 09:56 PM
http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2007/08/clinton-too-pol.html#comment-80094695
http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2007/08/clinton-too-pol.html#comment-80096629
That is one thing about Barack Obama that is refreshing. He is known to work with his adversaries and get something done. maidmarion
Can you name one time Barack worked with his adversaries to get something done? When and what did he get done?
Posted by: Max | August 20, 2007 at 07:17 PM
**The assertion was made by maidmarion. Back it up.
I personally think that she is the best person to redirect the course of America away from war to a peacetime economy once again.
Aren’t you tired of all the people killing and being killed thanks to failed foreign policies?
Posted by: Michael | August 20, 2007 at 07:08 PM
**The assertion was made by Michael. Back it up.
Hillary did not vote for war. Posted by: Michael
HeHe HA HA
She sure said AYE, when the senate voted to endorse our boys to go tip-toe through the tulips:
We are still in Iraq BECAUSE:
On the Joint Resolution (H.J.Res. 114 )October 11, 2002, 12:50 AMA joint resolution to authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.
Alphabetical by Senator NameAkaka (D-HI), NayAllard (R-CO), YeaAllen (R-VA), YeaBaucus (D-MT), YeaBayh (D-IN), YeaBennett (R-UT), YeaBiden (D-DE), YeaBingaman (D-NM), NayBond (R-MO), YeaBoxer (D-CA), NayBreaux (D-LA), YeaBrownback (R-KS), YeaBunning (R-KY), YeaBurns (R-MT), YeaByrd (D-WV), NayCampbell (R-CO), YeaCantwell (D-WA), YeaCarnahan (D-MO), YeaCarper (D-DE), YeaChafee (R-RI), NayCleland (D-GA), YeaClinton (D-NY), YeaCochran (R-MS), YeaCollins (R-ME), YeaConrad (D-ND), NayCorzine (D-NJ), NayCraig (R-ID), YeaCrapo (R-ID), YeaDaschle (D-SD), YeaDayton (D-MN), NayDeWine (R-OH), YeaDodd (D-CT), YeaDomenici (R-NM), YeaDorgan (D-ND), YeaDurbin (D-IL), NayEdwards (D-NC), YeaEnsign (R-NV), YeaEnzi (R-WY), YeaFeingold (D-WI), NayFeinstein (D-CA), YeaFitzgerald (R-IL), YeaFrist (R-TN), YeaGraham (D-FL), NayGramm (R-TX), YeaGrassley (R-IA), YeaGregg (R-NH), YeaHagel (R-NE), YeaHarkin (D-IA), YeaHatch (R-UT), YeaHelms (R-NC), YeaHollings (D-SC), YeaHutchinson (R-AR), YeaHutchison (R-TX), YeaInhofe (R-OK), YeaInouye (D-HI), NayJeffords (I-VT), NayJohnson (D-SD), YeaKennedy (D-MA), NayKerry (D-MA), YeaKohl (D-WI), YeaKyl (R-AZ), YeaLandrieu (D-LA), YeaLeahy (D-VT), NayLevin (D-MI), NayLieberman (D-CT), YeaLincoln (D-AR), YeaLott (R-MS), YeaLugar (R-IN), YeaMcCain (R-AZ), YeaMcConnell (R-KY), YeaMikulski (D-MD), NayMiller (D-GA), YeaMurkowski (R-AK), YeaMurray (D-WA), NayNelson (D-FL), YeaNelson (D-NE), YeaNickles (R-OK), YeaReed (D-RI), NayReid (D-NV), YeaRoberts (R-KS), YeaRockefeller (D-WV), YeaSantorum (R-PA), YeaSarbanes (D-MD), NaySchumer (D-NY), YeaSessions (R-AL), YeaShelby (R-AL), YeaSmith (R-NH), YeaSmith (R-OR), YeaSnowe (R-ME), YeaSpecter (R-PA), YeaStabenow (D-MI), NayStevens (R-AK), YeaThomas (R-WY), YeaThompson (R-TN), YeaThurmond (R-SC), YeaTorricelli (D-NJ), YeaVoinovich (R-OH), YeaWarner (R-VA), YeaWellstone (D-MN), NayWyden (D-OR), Nay
Please notice, when an actual V-O-T-E is taken on the senate floor,there are no other words, speeches, or anything else involved.
The above doesn’t say:
Clinton (D-NY), Yea (but I want to qualify that, with just in case shit happens, my butt is covered)
HAHAHA HEHEHE OHHO!
;-)
God loves you heathens because you give him something to LAUGH at.
We were all snowed by what the skewed Bush intel- or at least we were giving him the benefit of the doubt- and we certainly had doubts didn’t we? I guess that’s the way abusive men keep their women. “He won’t hurt me, he LOVES me…he’s not cheating…”
Ya’ll who support Bush are damn gullible. But again, look at who his base are. The easiest to snow!
I’m not at all pleased about Obama freaking out about the Obama girl vid though. He’s going to have to loosen up.
PROFESSIONAL POLLSTER answered the 67% question nicely Clark. I have nothing to add to that. And who cares? Bill Clinton isn’t running for office and neither is George Bush.
You boys can’t back up the statements you make supporting Obama and Hillary!
This whole topic turned into another hate Bush!
What is it you Dems are for? What is it your majority in Congress is DOING now?
Nothing. And Nothing.
Speaking of Obama: Does he or doesn’t he? Only his hairdresser knows for sure:
AP Updated: 2:58 a.m. CT July 20, 2007SUNAPEE, N.H. – Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama said Thursday the United States cannot use its military to solve humanitarian problems and that preventing a potential genocide in Iraq isn’t a good enough reason to keep U.S. forces there.
Submitted by admin on Mon, 2007-04-16 15:43.Huliq.comOn Thursday, April 12, 2007, over one hundred Illinois residents had an opportunity to hear Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) speak out on the importance of recognizing the Armenian Genocide, reported the Armenian National Committee of America (ANCA).In his response, Senator Obama stated: “For those who aren’t aware, there was a genocide that did take place against the Armenian people. It is one of these situations where we have seen a constant denial on the part of the Turkish Government and others that this occurred. It has become a sore spot diplomatically. . .”Following the meeting, Birazian commented: “Armenian Americans in Illinois and across the nation look forward to Senator Obama becoming a cosponsor of S. Res.106. His principled stand on genocide recognition is honorable,
Hey Max,
What the hell are these people going to whine and cry about when their democrat takes office?
My gosh, the Weblog will positively dry up!
HeHE HA HA! Oh HO!(I crack myself up, time for another Canadian Ale)
Did he or did she?”One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line.”President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.
“If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program.”President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.
(you suppose Bushy snuck into the white house back then and fooled Billy bob too? hehe)
“In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.”Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
Hillary/Chaleria same-same
As for Bill coming with Hillary, they don’t live together now, what makes you think he will move to the white house? We saw how much we got out of Hill when Bill was prez.
Kgrm what makes you such an expert on the Clintons marital condition spend alot of time in the Lincoln bedroom ehhh? Give us some more sorted details enquiring minds want to know.
Well Tama, they think they will put the socialist screws to hard working American taxpayers by raising taxes thru the roof, starting Hillarycare, and giving more welfare to the poor.
Cept for one thing. They can’t tie us to our jobs and force us to work – so we’ll all quit and live off welfare or retire!
See who winds up working then. Illegal Mexican Immigrants?
Can’t wait to see the illegal immigrant doctors provided by Hillarycare. All the good doctors will retire or move their practices to a private underground market – where they will get even richer!
Plus: 8 years in the White House, and another 10 in the Senate.
Posted by: Pedant | August 20, 2007 at 09:05 PM
Pendant I’ve been doing the math and something doesn’t add up. Was Hillary in the senate before Bill even left the white house? Darn he must have moved in a lady that looked just like her.
Kgrm what makes you such an expert on the Clintons marital condition spend alot of time in the Lincoln bedroom ehhh? Give us some more sorted details enquiring minds want to know.
Posted by: The Clenis | August 20, 2007 at 10:23 PM
Clenis were they in the Lincoln bedroom too? I thought that was the one they sold to contributors to their ‘library fund’. As for their martial status, well you would have to be deaf, blind or stupid not to know about it. Bill keeps no secrets. I guess his mom never taught him to be discreet.
Does Hillary really really mean what she says, and say what she means?
Hard medicine for liberals to come to grips with today. Hillary is a HAWK compared to Obama.
On Iraq, an area where Clinton has drawn considerable criticism for her unwillingness to apologize for her 2002 vote authorizing the war, she defended the Senate’s effort to pass a nonbinding resolution condemning President Bush’s plan to send 21,500 more combat troops to Iraq, calling it a first step in changing U.S. policy on the war. She also said she opposes any proposal to defund U.S. troops now or in the future.
“I know that is hard medicine for people,” Clinton said at a town-hall meeting Sunday night in Keene, a western New Hampshire town
Now, was she:a. For the warb. Against the warc. For sending in mored. Against sending in moree. For the war before she was against the warf. For the war but now against the war, but for sending in more troops(g) none of the above she gave a speech before the vote. She is now “covered” against any subsequent action and can sorta”pretend” that is was NOT HillaryRodham Clinton on the Senate Floorin 2002 voting AYE!
AYE!AYE!AYE!AYE!AYE!AYE!AYE!AYE!AYE!AYE!AYE!AYE!AYE!AYE!AYE!AYE!
To send our men and women to a MISTAKE. To a war for OIL!!!!To die for WMD that were not there.
She voted YES damn it. Get that through your heads. If you cannotrecognize and deal with:
TRUTH
How the heck will your party govern the rest of us?
AYE!AYE!AYE!AYE!AYE!AYE!AYE!AYE!
Neither did his Daddy.
He know who his Daddy is for sure?
One last time, for those who struggle to read:
That is one thing about Barack Obama that is refreshing. He is known to work with his adversaries and get something done. maidmarion
Can you name one time Barack worked with his adversaries to get something done? When and what did he get done?
Posted by: Max | August 20, 2007 at 07:17 PM
**The assertion was made by maidmarion. Back it up.
I personally think that she is the best person to redirect the course of America away from war to a peacetime economy once again.
Aren’t you tired of all the people killing and being killed thanks to failed foreign policies?
Posted by: Michael | August 20, 2007 at 07:08 PM
**The assertion was made by Michael. Back it up.
Posted by: Max | August 20, 2007 at 10:08 PM
I’ll check back in a few years, to see if Michael/Maidmarian/W Clark can back-up their own assertions.
Just google it guys. Just use your fingers. You know how to do that. (Probably doin that now!)
Robert Scheer is the co-author of The Five Biggest Lies Bush Told Us About Iraq.
Let’s face it: No matter how much many of us who oppose the war in Iraq would also love to elect a female president, Hillary Clinton is not a peace candidate. She is an unrepentant hawk, à la Joe Lieberman. She believed invading Iraq was a good idea, all available evidence to the contrary, and she has, once again, made it clear that she still does.
“If the most important thing to any of you is choosing someone who did not cast a vote [to authorize the war] or has said his vote was a mistake, then there are others to choose from,” she said in New Hampshire last week, confusing contempt for antiwar Americans — now a majority — with the courage of her indefensible conviction that she bears no responsibility for the humanitarian, economic and military disaster our occupation has wrought.
As a candidate for ‘08, Hillary clearly calculates that her war chest, star power, gender and pro-choice positions will be sufficient for her to triumph in the primaries, while being “tough,” pro-military and “supporting our president” will secure her flank in the general election against those who would paint her as that horrible beast, “a liberal.”
A winning strategy? That remains to be seen. It certainly does not bode well for the future of the nation, however, should it be. Consider the parallel case of President Lyndon Johnson, who can be heard on tapes of his White House conversations ruminating that he never believed in the Vietnam War and pursued it only to deny Barry Goldwater and the Republicans a winning campaign issue.
In fact, whether out of such callous political calculations or sincere beliefs, mindless militarism has been a bipartisan majority position in Washington for a half-century, and counting. With the end of the Cold War, its acolytes went searching for a new enemy to serve as a foil. When one emerged, those with aspirations to the presidency fell in line quite easily.
“Now, I believe the facts that have brought us to this fateful vote are not in doubt,” New York Sen. Clinton stated in her October 2002 speech when voting to authorize a war the White House had already decided to launch for bogus reasons, and which Clinton dutifully endorsed. “In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort and sanctuary to terrorists, including al-Qaida members …”
That none of this was true is now airily dismissed by Clinton as the result of her being mislead by “false intelligence.” Yet Clinton had to be aware that the case for Saddam’s WMD and ties to al-Qaida was weak, when not obviously misrepresented. Surely she was in contact with the intelligence and diplomatic sources from her husband’s administration who were telling anyone who would listen that the Bush team was obsessed with invading Iraq.
Leaving aside the absurdity that Democratic senators such as Clinton and ‘04 presidential candidate John Kerry didn’t have the access and means to do the same basic fact-checking of Bush administration claims that independent journalists, intelligence analysts and published skeptics such as ex-arms inspector Scott Ritter undertook, how is that they could have ignored the historical evidence that occupying Iraq with the vague goal of “fostering democracy” was a phenomenally dangerous endeavor? Had Clinton caught the “fever” for invading Iraq that Secretary of State Colin Powell attributed to Vice President Dick Cheney?
If not, Clinton certainly forgot her role as a senator to balance the power of the president, instead blindly following his lead: “I will take the president at his word that he will try hard to pass a U.N. resolution and will seek to avoid war, if at all possible,” she said. Yet, when the president clearly broke his word five months later, blindsiding the U.N. inspectors on the ground in Iraq who had found no evidence of WMD, Clinton simply cheered him on.
No, Congress failed to take seriously the obligation built into its constitutionally mandated exclusive power to declare war, and Sen. Clinton’s refusal to admit that is not a minor issue. This paired with her strident support, ever since the invasion of Iraq, for a huge increase in the standing army to fight other wars, including a possible confrontation with Iran, shows a fondness in Clinton for war and bullying adventurism that vastly overshadows her sensible stances on many domestic issues. As Barry Goldwater supporters stated in kicking off the Republican revolution, what we need is a choice, not an echo.
Talking points! Talking points!
Where are my talking points?
Can you name one time Barack worked with his adversaries to get something done? When and what did he get done?
Posted by: Max | August 20, 2007 at 07:17 PM
Hello? Is anyone there? Please pick up the bog. I’m waiting….
He converted to Christianity after the boys on the playground made fun of his towelhead.
http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2007/08/clinton-too-pol.html#comment-80090029
Ksgrm… You want to write on here about all of your knowledge, and you dont know who these people are??? Ted Haggard??? Pat Robertson (NO NOT Pat Roberts) You know the goon who says we should go assasinate a South American elected leader??? Yea, THAT Pat Robertson… The one and only who said the Towers fell because of Gays, and others he doesnt like… The SAME idiot who once prayed a Hurricane away from HIS university/compound, and it hit farther south in North Carolina… You know, the leader of the so-called “christian coalition”??? Ran for President???
And you somehow believe Bill and Hillary dont live together??? Where in God’s green earth do you come UP with crap like this??? You listen to Dobson too much, or what??? Or maybe its Mark Levin, or Michael Savage???
What has already been posted is VERY accurate… even among those married couples who ARENT of national prominence… MANY married couples live in the same house… but they arent in the same space all that much due to work loads, and travel plans, etc. I know about that from my own personal first-hand experience…. It really isnt a big deal now days… Maybe back in the 50’s or 60’s — but NOT today!!!
Really, if you want to be taken seriously, GET SOME FACTS STRAIGHT!!!
Hillary has the lowest approval numbers of any of the candidates. At that level of disapproval she is still 15 points ahead of the current administration that Mr. Rove has helped to create. What does that say about his opinions and abilities????
Yes, he’s a uniter, not a divider.
He can dance and sing too.
And he’s clean.
“I’ll check back in a few years, to see if Michael/Maidmarian/W Clark can back-up their own assertions.”
Max, I only posted in reference to Clinton and his approval ratings. As for “PP” that was obviously a troll, maybe even you, but who cares?
I stand by the numbers.
But I am still waiting for your proof of George W Bush’ bi-partisanship.
Still waiting.
As for KSGrm – she is well known for making up her own facts.
Loser.
“President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998….President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.”
Posted by: Tama | August 20, 2007 at 10:20 PM
http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp“Moreover, several of the quotes offered ANTEDATE the four nights of airstrikes unleashed against Iraq by U.S. and British forces during Operation Desert Fox in DECEMBER 1998, after which Secretary of Defense William S. Cohen and Gen. Henry H. Shelton (chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff) announced the action had been SUCCESSFUL in “degrad[ing] Saddam Hussein’s ability to deliver chemical, biological and nuclear weapons.” “
There is a fifth dimension beyond that which is known to man. It is a dimension as vast as space and timeless as infinity. It is the middle ground between light and shadow, between science and superstition, and it lies between the pit of a man’s fears and the summit of his knowledge. This is the dimension of imagination. It is an area we call the Twilight Zone.
And that’s it for tonights show.
See you again later, in the Twilight Zone!
Oh geez, it’s time for the sock puppet show…. That takes me out of here for now…
Well, it was a nice Blog for a while today at least!!
Nite all!!
You can’t wait till hell freezes over Clark, but that dead horse you been beating ain’t getting up.
October 10, 2002
Floor Speech of Senator Hillary Rodham Clintonon S.J. Res. 45, A Resolution to Authorize the Use ofUnited States Armed Forces Against IraqAs Delivered
Today we are asked whether to give the President of the United States authority to use force in Iraq should diplomatic efforts fail to dismantle Saddam Hussein’s chemical and biological weapons and his nuclear program.
(what? Hillary knew he had WMD?)
Now, I believe the facts that have brought us to this fateful vote are not in doubt. Saddam Hussein is a tyrant who has tortured and killed his own people, even his own family members, to maintain his iron grip on power. He used chemical weapons on Iraqi Kurds and on Iranians, killing over 20 thousand people. Unfortunately, during the 1980’s, while he engaged in such horrific activity, he enjoyed the support of the American government, because he had oil and was seen as a counterweight to the Ayatollah Khomeini in Iran.
(what, President Clinton supported Saddam? For oil? what? How can that be? Clinton authorized CIA in later years to get Saddam out no matter what. What? for oil?)
And though he repeatedly lied, delayed, and obstructed the inspections work, the inspectors found and destroyed far more weapons of mass destruction capability than were destroyed in the Gulf War, including thousands of chemical weapons, large volumes of chemical and biological stocks, a number of missiles and warheads, a major lab equipped to produce anthrax and other bio-weapons, as well as substantial nuclear facilities.
(Saddam lied? Wheres the anthrax?)
As a result, President Clinton, with the British and others, ordered an intensive four-day air assault, Operation Desert Fox, on known and suspected weapons of mass destruction sites and other military targets.
(her own words ladies and gentlemen. She had Bill attack forWMD!)
“REPORTS” show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001.
(wait a minute here – did Hillary lie? Did she read the same reports Bushy did? She said the word r-e-p-o-r-t-s. She MUST have read em to comment on em.)
It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.
(Well it was clear. But then it wasn’t clear. Sorta murky. Finally completely not clear, and false. But enough to vote AYE!)
Credibility gap here.
Attention republicans (all two of you)! Do not speak bad of Hillary Clinton. We know she is bad news. But that misses the point.
We WANT her to get the nomination.We NEED her to get the nomination.
Say no evil about Hillary on the blogs.
Thank-you
Return to regular blogging now.
Polarizing? Yup, she even turned Bill away. Clinton’s too ugly to be President.
Calm down Chas before you pop a cork or something else. Of course I know who those people are now that you have told me, I was just confused because we were talking of political figures and presidential candidates and when their names were thrown in it was a little confusing. Now that we all know who they are what do they have to do with this discussion.?
Woosss climb back in that hole you have been in. You contribute nothing.
I guess Republank is back with new troll nics. Who the Hell knows who he is anymore?
I would guess that there are only about four Right Wingnutz on this blog – the rest are all variations of the usual suspects.
And Max? YOU brought up the supposed bi-partisanship of GWB – if you can’t back that up with fact then you will just have to hide your head in shame.
It’s on you, little man, not me.
See y’all!!!!!
I’ll be back to kick Neocon ass again some other day.
Sleep well, you self-delusional fools!
Nity-nite!!!!
By the way Chas the Clinton’s make no secret of the fact that they don’t live together why are you so surprised?
They love each others minds.
“Woosss climb back in that hole you have been in. You contribute nothing.”
Go f%ck yourself, KSGrm. The only things you contribute are your lies and made up facts.
Loser.
Where is your proof of that Ksgrm??? About the Clintons???
Statements like that have been known to sway public opinion about candidates…. Wouldnt want that to happen…
Still no proof yet from the poster who claimed Jennifer Flowers had an abortion… Another one of those spurious things that can affect voters…
Kgrm,The clenis wants to know about your home and sex life.Since your a blog celebrity now. How many times a day do you and Mr.kgrm? you know do the nasty? You and he/she live together right?While I was standing in the checkout line at Dillons the other day there were many headlines in the tabloids about George and Laura Bush divorcing, living apart.This will no doubt have a impact how the wonderful job bushie does ehhhhh?
It is common knowledge that Hillary’s legs are too big, not presidential material, at least according to Coulter.
Clenis I thought Bush had booted Laura out of the white house and moved Condi in. That was the last headline I saw at the super market anyhow.
You know you are right and I shouldn’t have speculated about the private life of Bill and Hill. That has no relevance to her qualifications for the job of prez. She simply has no qualifications.
Phantom I never did hear how you got to be the spokesperson for America. How did that happen? Coulter really shouldn’t talk about anyone elses legs. Bad taste.
In a free and fair election, didn’t you vote?
“But some political strategists think the opposite — that Rove is trying more reverse psychology with Democrats in hopes that they reflexively rally around Clinton rather than choosing Barack Obama or John Edwards. Rove’s team used a similar strategy during the 2004 primaries when they criticized John Kerry in hopes that it would help keep Edwards from getting the nomination.”Those who fail to learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them.
“But some political strategists think the opposite — that Rove is trying more reverse psychology with Democrats in hopes that they reflexively rally around Clinton rather than choosing Barack Obama or John Edwards. Rove’s team used a similar strategy during the 2004 primaries when they criticized John Kerry in hopes that it would help keep Edwards from getting the nomination.”Those who fail to learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them.