Maybe Hillary Clinton was just tired Sunday in Iowa. Or maybe this is what’s wrong with her as a candidate or even with politics in general:
“I’m leading in all the polls. I’m beating them in state after state after state,†she said, referring to Republican presidential candidates.
“There have been a lot of polls and, frankly, I don’t pay much attention to any of them,†on trailing Barack Obama in a recent Iowa poll.
Posted by Rhonda Holman
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
- American_Way on Open thread 11/22
- American_Way on Health care reform would save state money
- satatom on Open thread 11/22
- satatom on Open thread 11/22
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
- American_Way on Open thread 11/22
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
- Raptor on Open thread 11/22
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
- Boxlock20 on Open thread 11/22
41 Comments
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: any of the top three Democratic candidates could be an excellent President of the United States. But I think Senator Clinton best serves America as a Senator. Barak Obama’s vision is this nation’s future; inspiring and JFK-esque in all the best ways.
But John Edwards is, in so many and meaningful ways, the anti-Shrub.
And we need that.
We need to tell the world — enemies and allies alike — there’s a new sheriff in town; one who will advocate the interests of America but not attempt to bully its power for the benefit of corporate profits.
We need to tell Americans that government of, by, and for the *people* shall not perish from the earth.
While I respect Senator Clinton’s pragmatism and I admire Senator Obama’s vision, I’m in it for Edwards because he best personifies what America aspires to be in the here and now and tomorrow.
Mega dittos, MH.
Maybe it’ll shake out to Edwards-Obama. That could be a helluva ticket!
As of now I am supporting Obama. I may change between now and primary day but for now I think he has the best chance of beating Hillary and winning next year. We simply have to beat the Republicans and have a President that will actually advocate and do things for the majority of Americans and not just the rich and the Pentagon.
She wouldn’t come close to Ron Paul in the polls if these rediculous polls were in the 21st Century. These “polls” are taken from land-line phones and how many folks (under the age of 60)actually have a land line phone? They (the pollsters) list all but the “top tier” candidates (Rudy McRomney and Hillama Edwards) These so-called “polls” are antiquated and like the “main stream media”, obsolete. The only Republican that has a chance against Hillary is Ron Paul. So if you want Hitlery as president, don’t Google Ron Paul and definitely do not vote for him. And BTW, if any of you “Dems” think that you’ll see any (better) changes with the top-tier Dems, think again.
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
Correction:The polls list all but the so-called “top-tier” candidates as “other”. No mention of Dr. Paul.
Well if you figure in the landline phones then Duane, Hillary must be ahead by much farther as the younger crowd is more likely to vote for her as well.
I like what Hillary says about being the one to stand up to the GOP. We need that. As of right now, the others are still talking about working WITH Them, and we know how that works out.
The republicans will bowl over the dems and take advantage of them. They need to be completely shut out and humbled for a little while…perhaps when they learn to play nicer and more reasonably, they’ll get a seat back at the adult table.
Let the record show, cheap shot master plying his craft above.
Edwards-Obama
Great. Yet another Bigot and Vice Bigot for America.
Is the anti-gay marriage issue one that is held to ensure getting votes in the South? If that isn’t it, what is that decision based on?
Am I remembering correctly that Edwards is anti-gay marriage, but his wife is for it? A method of having both ways, perhaps?
“There have been a lot of polls and, frankly, I don’t pay much attention to any of them,” on trailing Barack Obama in a recent Iowa poll.Posted by Rhonda Holman
November 30, 2007 in Presidential race | Permalink
Yeah, like that is true.
I bet Hillary has 20 staffers working on it, along with a couple of PhD political scientists and statisticians to figure how to improve her poll numbers. :D
Hillary is horrible, as far as ethics and accomplishments are concerned.However, if she does win the primary, these Dems will be behind her 100%.
Paul, there is a great deal of difference in being behind anyone 100% and being against the opponent 100%. Recently, I have voted for the better of two poor choices. And, I hold my head high that I can say I never cast a vote for bush. What a tragedy he has wrought on our country. Whoever gets the job next has a mess to clean up.
What’s overwhelming about the current crop of presidential hopefuls is how none of the regular conservative voices has anything good to say about any of the Republic Party’s candidates.
Okay, the libertarians are excited about Ron Paul, but none of them (or anybody else, for that matter) thinks he has a chance.
The major GOP candidates have no advocates in this forum. The silence speaks volumes.
Monkey you are right in some ways. No republican candidate has risen to the top as someone I can get excited about. There is potential and I know that the end result is that I will have to vote for the candidate that meets the majority of my expectations.
Just like her husband who will be the real president:
First he was for the war,then against the war.THEN he swears he was NEVER for the war.
Hillary was for the warthen against the war,now she is for the war
until at least 2013
Is the anti-gay marriage issue one that is held to ensure getting votes in the South? If that isn’t it, what is that decision based on?
Am I remembering correctly that Edwards is anti-gay marriage, but his wife is for it? A method of having both ways, perhaps?
Posted by: Steven Davis | November 30, 2007 at 11:56 AM
How cares? This is not one of the burning issues America is facing.
Who cares?
Nothing personal. But even the polls do not indicate this is important to most Americans.
LindaYou are ridiculous.
W should have done more on the illegal immigartion issue.
W should have vetoed some of the spending bills, back when the GOP was in control of Congress.
Iraq? Murtha just said the surge was working. Bill Clinton was for the war, against the war, for the war against the war (kinda like Kerry)
Federal revenues are at an all time high.
W. has done a very good job, overall, and will be remembered as one of our best Presidents, after he leaves office.
Kind of like Truman.
Your opinion is your opinion. It is rather shallow and baseless, if you as me.
The American people are fickle.
The approval rating for Congress is lower than W’s approval rating.
We face tough decisions in this country, and NONE of those choices, if taken, will ever be able to hold a large majority of support, over a long period of time.
That is why we have a REPUBLIC and not a pure Democracy.
Leaders are not “married” to the polls, like Bill Clinton always was.
Leaders do what is best, and take the heat.
You do not have such a person, on the Democrat side, in my opinion.
Poll watchers are followers, not leaders.
The major GOP candidates have no advocates in this forum. The silence speaks volumes.-Monkey
I like to defend issues, not candidates.
There are a few candidates (all GOP) that have some good views in my opinion, but do I really know them? Since we are all different and think differently, there’s probably going to be an issue pop up that I can not defend for each of them.
From my view, there may be silence on candidates but not on the issues that GOP voters care about.
“ksgrm” –
To echo “Econ101’s” comment, I’m confident you and the rest of the cons will be behind whomever the Republic Party nominates 100%.
Pro-choice, pro-gay, pro-gun contol Rudy Giulani? Pro-life, pro-tax Mike Huckabee? Pro-gay, anti-gay, pro-choice, anti-choice, pro-magic-underwear Mitt Romney? Pro-immigrant John McCain? Pro-nap Frederick of Hollywood?
Certainly there’s a Republic Party candidate WEBlog cons are for.
Hey Monkey Man,
I’m for Huckabee. I’ve even donated money to his campaign.
I just see no need to defend him here.
Idiot
“Econ101″ –
Congressman Murtha’s statement was far more nuanced than what is being reported and echoes his previous statements praising the U.S. military’s efforts.
Speaking via teleconference to reporters in four different cities, Murtha did acknowledge that the surge, which he had firmly criticized, has led to military successes. But he also warned repeatedly that the Iraqis were not doing enough to capitalize on those gains.
“I think the surge is working but that’s only one element. It’s working because of the increase in troops,” he said, “but the thing that has to happen is that the Iraqis have to do this themselves.”
Remember, “Econ101,” what “The Surge” was supposed to achieve? Stability so the Iraqi government could get its s#it together.
How’s *that* strategy working?
“Econ101″ –
Congressman Murtha’s statement was far more nuanced than what is being reported and echoes his previous statements praising the U.S. military’s efforts.
Speaking via teleconference to reporters in four different cities, Murtha did acknowledge that the surge, which he had firmly criticized, has led to military successes. But he also warned repeatedly that the Iraqis were not doing enough to capitalize on those gains.
“I think the surge is working but that’s only one element. It’s working because of the increase in troops,” he said, “but the thing that has to happen is that the Iraqis have to do this themselves.”
Remember, “Econ101,” what “The Surge” was supposed to achieve? Stability so the Iraqi government could get its s#it together.
How’s *that* strategy working?
(Sorry for the previous double post.)
Fine “Hank” –
No need for name-calling.
You’re for pro-tax Huckabee, the guy Robert Novak refers to as “…a high-tax, protectionist advocate of big government and a strong hand in the Oval Office directing the lives of Americans.”
“Hank’s” candidate was regarded by fellow Republican governors as a compulsive tax-and-spender. He increased the Arkansas tax burden 47 percent.
Good choice, “Hank.”
Sorry for the name calling. I’ve actually reserched the candidates quite a bit. Hit jobs from the MSM and Novak effect me less than you might think.
Here’s a novel thought, you obviously have little respect for Novak, if you don’t refer to him as your expert, neither will I.
Huckabee is the only candidate on either side that can wrap his lips around the words “fair tax”. Good enough for me.
To echo “Econ101’s” comment, I’m confident you and the rest of the cons will be behind whomever the Republic Party nominates 100%.-Monkey
So What?
To be sure, MonkeyHawk will support the Dem’s nominee 100%.
Big deal.
I realize it’s a stretch to think that a hayseed governor from Arkansas has a chance for president. . . Oh, wait, that’s already happened!
Huckabee has just as much experience as ol’ Slick Willie. . . .with out the experiences. (if you know what I mean)
Hank at this time Huckabee is my choice too and it his ‘fair tax’ statement that got me. I still am out on his stance on illegals. Feel they are a drain on our education system with little paid for the opportunity. This would be addressed with the fair tax so that would be a moot point. As for raising taxes in Arkansas. They are still well behind the national average I believe.
I was for Rudy but he carries to much baggage for me. The dems would have a hay day with him.
Romney is to wishy washy for me. He has already got socialized healthcare in Mass and the citizens there don’t like it.
My son works with a man from Canada. He lives in the DC area now. When asked about the health care he said “Canada is a great place to live when you don’t have a job”. When I retire I am moving back.
Lots of time for changes so am still taking it slow.
Huckabee is the only candidate on either side that can wrap his lips around the words “fair tax”. Good enough for me.
Posted by: Hank | November 30, 2007 at 01:44 PM
Has Huckabee backed off on his defense of the children of illegal immigrants attending public colleges with instate tuition?
AmWay I haven’t heard yet on that one. He doesn’t think that the children should be punished for the
mistakes of the parents. I am out on that one also.
sorry for the two part post. Pushed the wrong button.
Has Huckabee backed off on his defense of the children of illegal immigrants attending public colleges with instate tuition?
Posted by: American Way | November 30, 2007 at 02:02 PM
Huckabee is probably thinking with his Christian background on that issue.
It may come back to bite him, but he probably believes that children shouldn’t have to suffer for the “sins” of their parents.
Can’t say I don’t disagree with Huckabee, but I can say I might be more “heartless” with those illegal immigrants who knowingly abuse the system just so their children can get into our school systems.
“Kansas” –
“…immigrants who knowingly abuse the system just so their children can get into our school systems”?!
Here and I thought all you cons were convinced public education is an utter failure.
You’re wrong, as usual. The only-est reason “illegal” aliens come to the United States is because Americans hire them *illegally.*
My thoughts on allowing children of illegal aliens to attend public schools as residents is that it is wrong. Out of State Americans have to pay higher rates than illegals. They should NOT be hired and get a job with their earned degree if someone enforces the law. Additionally, once they qualify for in state tuition (accepted into college/university), can they apply for student loans and grants? We are all funding the illegals education, unfairly, and that is doing citizens wrong!
Additionally, I am concerned by the perception we give when we condone the actions of criminals.It is in fact acceptance of their residency, when most Americans, a large majority – are opposed to the granting of citizenship to illegals. Americans of both parties rated this one of the burning issues – right after terrorism, facing our nation!
Additionally, with neighboring Missouri and Oklahoma passing some of the nations most strict laws and measures against illegals in those states, our state of Kansas may be perceived as the place to homestead.
MHO.
We need to have the political will to treat Mexicans for what they are, guest workers.
they’re not immigrants, they don’t want to be Americans. They want to work here, send money home to their families, drive their Chevy pickups with old English words (what’s up with that?) and a decal of the Virgin of Guadalupe on the back.
They don’t want to learn English and assimilate into our culture. They aren’t ‘Mexican-Americans’. They’re Mexican workers.The democrats want them as future voters and will tolerate anything they do to ensure their vote. The republicans are afraid they’ll turn into democrats will tolerate anything they do to ensure their vote.
We need to come up with a sensible guest worker program and make them abide by it.
“”"Is the anti-gay marriage issue one that is held to ensure getting votes in the South? If that isn’t it, what is that decision based on?
Am I remembering correctly that Edwards is anti-gay marriage, but his wife is for it? A method of having both ways, perhaps?”"”"
The LAST thing any Democrat needs to do is pander to the south. First of all they will not ever win a single state in the south. The south is solidly red and will remain so. The good news is that the Democrats don’t need to win anything in the south to govern. And if they start pandering “to guys with Confederate flags on pickup trucks” (Howard Dean), they will lose millions of voters in states they could win. The Democratic base- most of us anyway- do not like racist redneck bigots anymore than we like neo con Republicans (not much difference there anyway).
“”"My thoughts on allowing children of illegal aliens to attend public schools as residents is that it is wrong. Out of State Americans have to pay higher rates than illegals. They should NOT be hired and get a job with their earned degree if someone enforces the law. Additionally, once they qualify for in state tuition (accepted into college/university), can they apply for student loans and grants? We are all funding the illegals education, unfairly, and that is doing citizens wrong!”"”
The children of illegals had no say so about coming here. They were brought here by adults. If they do what we say we want kids to do- that is stay out of trouble, stay in school and get decent grades- why in Hell would you want to deny them a college education? If anything we need to be sending MORE of the Mexicans to college because they are quickly becoming a large part of our country.
If the children of the Mexicans are residents of Kansas, they should pay the same tutition as any other Kansas resident to attend KU. I personally would like to see the in state vs out of state tuition scam done away with. Everybody should pay the same price for the same product. If your kid wants to come down here and attend UGA, he should pay the same price mine would pay. Same if my daughter wants to go to KU.
KevShow me a well known “racist” neocon?
The whole term, “neocon” started as code for “Jewish Republican”.
The (false) notion was that somehow these conservatives were different, fundamentally, from those before them.
Not really, however, as the Republican Party has always been rather supportive of Israel, and fairly conservative on other issues.
There are “isolationist” Republicans, for sure. People like Pat Buchanan, Novak and others. They are NOT considered “neocons”. But, I do not consider them “racists” either.
Then, you have Democrat Robert Byrd, in the US Senate, former Grand Klegal of the KKK?
Please quit tossing out cheap insults and generalizations.
Rats leaving a sinking ship.
They won’t have power to make ‘em money anymore by legislative and executive fiat. SO they are bailing to pursue it in the private sector.
The GOP has a huge problem. They rose to power on hot button issues like outlawing abortion. Ah but if they actually DID anything in that direction, they’d lose the issue. The upshot is their…passionate supporters in this are tired of no action. For the GOP, that’s lose lose.
Too? At their core, the neocons are about one and just one thing: money. They don’t care about their country beyond waving a flag for show. If they can outsource manufacture of that flag or import workers to make it for slave wages, thus hurting their country and fellow Americans? Well a flag’s a flag! Another buck to wave that’s what they really want.
Finally? They forced george bush who is the epitome of my other points on us. Americans are not going to forget that.
No it’s not RIP. Republicans are too mean to die. But they’ll founder in the wilderness for a good long time. That’s a good thing. In 14 years they managed to erase a lot of the progress of the last 60 some. They don’t get to play again until their mess is cleaned up.