Oh-eight (R): Careful what you wish for

Martin Elder, Tulsa Oklahoma — Tue, 23 Oct 2007 13:30:06 GMT

Clintons negatives are so high that not only will she energize the Republicans to vote against her, but many Democrats will stay home and not vote for her. Some Democrats will even switch sides to vote against Hillary. She doesn't stand a chance.

Oh-eight (R): Careful what you wish for

RKA, IL — Tue, 23 Oct 2007 13:33:30 GMT

I don't undertsand why in a year that the Republicans are divided and in shambles, we want to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory by nominating such a polarizing candidate. Hillary is their ticket out of the political wilderness. Even if she wins, congress is going to be in jeopardy. Remember the Clintons lost congress in 1994. Nominating her gives the republicans a bogeywoman to unify themselves around. What is scary is that they are even thinking of noninating a social moderate, Giullini, who could compete in blue states just to beat her. Giuliani could win the right and center while HIllary has troule keeping the left because of her flip flopping on the war. We shouldn't do what the republicans need to unify their party. We should not nominate HIllary Clinon.

Oh-eight (R): Careful what you wish for

jerry/corpus christi texas — Tue, 23 Oct 2007 13:43:19 GMT

Why would the democrats pick someone who is in the news everyday with stories of corruption in her campaign? From her warehouse holding her files in Little Rock to Chinese dishwashers making no money giving her thousands of dollars, one has to wonder if the only reason the press is staying with her is because she can guarantee them four years of corruption and sewer stories. I would think Americans would want someone who can fix whatever problems they have, not add to them.

Oh-eight (R): Careful what you wish for

Mark, Concord, NH — Tue, 23 Oct 2007 13:46:28 GMT

Amen. RKA. Anyone is better ( Just say NO to: Clinton & Ron Paul) Keep in mind, folks, most of Congress is up for re-election. Pelosi will be out. Congress will be eyeing mostly Republicans, as Democrats have done nothing. Either or, voting a Republican can be beneficial for many reasons. Guiliani is our best bet.

Oh-eight (R): Careful what you wish for

vanreuter, NY NY — Tue, 23 Oct 2007 13:53:12 GMT

his is a great and spot-on piece from, of all places, "The American Conservative", on Hillary and the election.

Some excerpts from the article;

October 22, 2007 Issue
Copyright © 2007 The American Conservative

It Takes an Agenda

Conservatives cannot live by Hillary-hate alone.

by David Weigel

" And those efforts have been absolute triumphs compared to the third-party anti-Hillary efforts and PACs. The first sign that conservative donors were growing less animated about the Clintons was the launch of Stop Her Now in February 2005. Republican strategist Arthur Finkelstein planned on raising $10 million for a campaign along the lines of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, the 2004 group that raised $27 million to attack John Kerry’s Vietnam service and his homeland antiwar activism.

Finkelstein failed. The group recorded a radio ad that was never broadcast and from its founding through June 2005, reported only one $500 donation. Over the next year, Clinton glided to her Senate re-election as the group raised only $25,000, and she out-raised her opponent by nearly ten to one."

" There is another reason conservatives can’t count on Hillary: she offends and irritates them so deeply that they have trouble actually strategizing against her. They launch attacks, but compared to the carefully plotted Swift Boat strike on John Kerry or the years-long effort to spotlight Al Gore’s strange bragging and fibbing, the anti-Hillary attacks are erratic, grabbing early media attention and then fading out of the picture. Conservatives fixate on long-dormant scandals, like Bill Clinton’s treatment of Kathleen Willey and Juanita Broaddrick, without appreciating that reporters no longer want to chase those stories and that their very mention stokes sympathy for Clinton’s wife.

But it’s all some anti-Hillary agitators know how to do. In July, Sean Hannity told professional Hillary slayer Dick Morris the question he wanted some intrepid hack to ask the candidate: “Do you believe the women that claim that your husband serially abused them? Juanita Broaddrick, Kathleen Willey, Paula Jones. Is that a legitimate and fair question?” Morris repeatedly shook his head and tried to explain where Hannity was going wrong: “Whenever anybody hits Hillary on her personal life, her marriage, or whether she is a lesbian or not, it plays into her hands.”

Morris is right. Clinton has never been as popular as she was in 1998 and 1999, during the height of her husband’s sex scandals, when voters grew to see her as a courageous wronged woman. (New York Democrats recruited Clinton to run for their open Senate seat hoping to cash in on that popularity. She didn’t, as it’s sometimes remembered, “parachute” into the race.) She’s not completely immune from Republican attacks on her character, but she can deflect an awful lot of the damage. Most attacks on Hillary’s past, her ethics, or her scandals either backfire or fall off the radar."

" Obviously, 2008 is not going to lack for anti-Hillary campaigns. There will be more books, more speculation about scandals, more digging into financial records—a treasure hunt for some silver bullet that will finally end her career. This is exactly what the Clinton campaign is ready for, and they’re in luck: the swing vote that will elect the next president is far angrier at Republicans and George W. Bush than it is at her right now. It’s moved on. It wants to hear some new arguments."

Something the republicans sadly lack...

http://www.amconmag.com/2007/2007_10_22/cover.html
Disclaimer:
(You can read the entire entry by following the link. I am trying to balance my posts between those who complain that they are too long when they are complete, and those who complain that I am, "distorting the facts", when I leave the reader to their own devices.)

Van

Oh-eight (R): Careful what you wish for

DeDe Carrubba — Tue, 23 Oct 2007 13:54:52 GMT

The thought of Hillary Clinton as our president scares me to death. If the middle class thinks they have it bad under Bush wait until Clinton makes the middle class pay for everyone’s 401k, healthcare, as well the increased welfare she's bound to implement! What is the incentive for the people to get a job? ...

Oh-eight (R): Careful what you wish for

Jaye fl — Tue, 23 Oct 2007 14:03:15 GMT

Of course National Review stirs up Romney in their mix. NO word of Huckabee's 51% landslide from votes of those present at the Values Voters Conference. No word of how Huckabee is riding Romney's tail, no matter how much more money Romney spends. hehe! That's the story. And how Romney "contributed" hundreds of thousands of Romney bucks to major conservative groups like nr just months before his campaign, which he's never contributed to before, nor any like them according to public record, groups who criticized Romney before his contributions, who, since are showing him support. Voters are disgusted with it, and are not listening to them. They are voting the man, not the money. They are voting Huckabee.

Let's see if you post this. please :)

Oh-eight (R): Careful what you wish for

jerry/corpus christi texas — Tue, 23 Oct 2007 14:05:30 GMT

On Sept. 8,1992, Bill Clinton said, "The only people who will pay more income taxes are the wealthiest 2 percent, those living in households making over $200,000 a year."

In response to a Bush-Quayle ad that people with incomes of as little as $36,000 would pay more taxes under the Clinton plan, Bill Clinton said on Oct. 1, 1992, "It's a disgrace to the American people that the president (Bush) of the United States would make a claim that is so baseless, that is so without foundation, so shameless in its attempt to get votes under false pretenses."

Yet the NY TIMES in the analysis of Clinton's budget wrote, "There are tax increases for every family making more than $20,000 a year!"

"While Clinton continued to defend his middle-class tax cut publicly, he privately expressed the view to his advisers that it was intellectually dishonest." (The Agenda, by Bob Woodward, p. 31)

This was Bill Clinton....
I hate to see what Hillary has in store for the middle class today.

Oh-eight (R): Careful what you wish for

vanreuter, NY NY — Tue, 23 Oct 2007 14:12:22 GMT

This was Bill Clinton....
I hate to see what Hillary has in store for the middle class today.

jerry/corpus christi texas (Sent Tuesday, October 23, 2007 10:05 AM)

The republican party is at it's lowest point, and here you are like Nero fiddling as Rome burns.
You whine about liberal economic proposals, but don't comment on the BILLIONS and BILLIONS of dollars lost to corruption and incompetence in the sink-hole that is Iraq. We will, as we hammer the republicans and crush them in the general election. Where are the quarter of a million GUNS? Where are our tax dollars that you only seem to care about if a liberal is spending them going? We'll be hammering that point as we roll to control of BOTH HOUSES and the PRESIDENCY. The disorganization and incompetence of the republican administration of the last 7 years is enough to make any REAL conservative SCREAM in frustration and anger, but not you. You care more about trashing the democrats, while we blow TWO BILLION a week in Iraq. Forget about a democrat, the "Stock-pickin'-chicken", would have been a better chief executive than Bush has been. He has almost single-handedly RUINED your party and you reserve your ire for, Bill CLINTON? In 1996??

Nothing to say, as a conservative while YOUR party set to put the country neck-deep in debt. How's about that Medicare Drug fiasco, er, plan?? Maybe you should have been digging a doughnut hole.
Sex and corruption scandals indicative of a political party ROTTING from within, and you waste your time bleating about some Chinese funds connection. The utter pettiness and paucity of your complaints and childish taunts must be an attempt to divert attention from your party's rotten, stinking, core.

Below you will find a headline, your republican party can only read about their president, if they have one made up at the Carnival.

President Clinton announces another record budget surplus
From CNN White House Correspondent Kelly Wallace

September 27, 2000
Web posted at: 4:51 p.m. EDT (2051 GMT)

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Clinton announced Wednesday that the federal budget surplus for fiscal year 2000 amounted to at least $230 billion, making it the largest in U.S. history and topping last year's record surplus of $122.7 billion.

"Eight years ago, our future was at risk," Clinton said Wednesday morning. "Economic growth was low, unemployment was high, interest rates were high, the federal debt had quadrupled in the previous 12 years. When Vice President Gore and I took office, the budget deficit was $290 billion, and it was projected this year the budget deficit would be $455 billion."

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/09/27/clinton.surplus/

President Clinton announces ANOTHER RECORD budget surplus. Note that it isn't just a budget surplus, it's a RECORD budget surplus; And it isn't just a RECORD budget surplus it's ANOTHER RECORD BUDGET SURPLUS.

That's funny, the headline I found with no digging at all, you only have to Google, "Clinton surplus", is from 2000. Turns out, Clinton was President from 1992-2000 and he left office in 2000 with consecutive record budget surpluses, that have been squandered and turned into a 3 plus TRILLION dollar deficit by the clowns you voted for and defend. Isn't that funny? You hate Clinton and he was a fiscally responsible President, and you're a CONSERVATIVE. I think that saying that a president who presided over consecutive RECORD BUDGET SURPLUSES, was fiscally responsible, especially contrasted with the current utterly incompetent, "Don't tax and spend", idiots, is an understatement.

This digging on your part is more like you were given enough rope to hang yourself.

So Clinton gave us a surplus and Bush gave us a tax-cut and a war and the shaft, and we won't really know how bad off we really are until they slink out in 2009, we just know that it's BAD. You prefer Bush, and waste your time sniping at the democrats. I am sure that there is a universe somewhere where that makes sense...

Van

Oh-eight (R): Careful what you wish for

Langx — Tue, 23 Oct 2007 14:12:46 GMT

I would hate to see the world not at war and America with a surplus. I love being lied to constantly and billions of doallars being wasted on a fake war.

Boy the Clinton days were just a living hell.

Oh-eight (R): Careful what you wish for

J Spencer, Michigan — Tue, 23 Oct 2007 14:16:08 GMT

Who are all of these Clinton haters? Are they Christians or make believe. My Bible tells me that we should not hate anyone. I am sick and tired of these old fat men trying to tell people what to do.
Just take care of yourself only.
God does not like ugly and most of these haters are UGLY!

Oh-eight (R): Careful what you wish for

Richard Burks, Kettering, Ohio — Tue, 23 Oct 2007 14:20:53 GMT

Well, I think finally the Republican Party has imploded. With no accomplishments since 2000, the world's distain for America, our destroying Iraq, the national debt, a corrupt administration, Barney Fife running as a candidate would beat this rehashed Republican bunch. The Democrats are not only going to take the White house but will increase their majoritys in the House and Senate. The Republicans may have bought their way in Louisianna, but by next November it will be three strikes and their out!!

Oh-eight (R): Careful what you wish for

Andrew, Frederick, MD — Tue, 23 Oct 2007 14:21:56 GMT

Clinton is a bad choice for all the reasons mentioned above. The Dems could walk this election home if not for their dogged desire to pick the one person who fractures their party. Problem is, with her power base and influence, she is already in a position that to turn on her, even for great reasons, would be seen as a huge negative...whether it was strategy or cowarace or manipulation. The Dems are wed to the stragegy to run her for the nomination. But in a close election (face it, only 2% are in play), she adds nobody to the base, and loses potentials to even poor Republican nominees.

Oh-eight (R): Careful what you wish for

Amy B Portland ME — Tue, 23 Oct 2007 14:22:49 GMT

I don't know, I think people generally agree the woman is brilliant, competent and tough. So she's not Laura Bush, she's not running for First Lady. She's running for President. Would people rather gamble on another unknown like Guiliani? What national foreign policy does he have? I think you'd be surprised how many people will vote for the stronger candidate, as opposed to the less divisive.

Oh-eight (R): Careful what you wish for

George Tremblay — Tue, 23 Oct 2007 14:23:06 GMT

What a ridiculous article, once again ignoring the largest elephant in the room...Ron Paul. Rather than speculate and draw false conclusions from mere opinion, why not just look at the known facts?
Nationwide GOP Straw Poll contests-Ron Paul wins handown with 30% average, and beats ALL head-to-head
Mass Media post-debate polls - Ron Paul wins all, usually by a landslide
Online support as measured by meetup volunteers, search engines queries and any other measurement you like...nobody else even CLOSE to Ron Paul
Money in the bank at the end of the 3rd quarter--Ron Paul a close 3rd to Thompson, and his fundraising trend is up 400% over Q2 while all others are down.

These 'Ron Paul who'? type articles have become as pathetic as they are transparent in their efforts to make the elephant in the room disappear, Copperfield-style. Keep it up. It serves to expand awareness of the ham-handed game being played.

Oh-eight (R): Careful what you wish for

mikeeg,abdn,wa — Tue, 23 Oct 2007 14:27:53 GMT

if the repubs hate her so much then she is the obvious choice for pres. and these phony dems(repubs in disguise) saying they wont vote for her is laughable, Hillary will and can kick any repubs ass and will own the WH for the next 8 years.

Oh-eight (R): Careful what you wish for

Justin M, Manassas VA — Tue, 23 Oct 2007 14:30:39 GMT

Too bad no one covered Hillary's affair with Vince Foster before he died.

Oh-eight (R): Careful what you wish for

Tuck,Realityville, KS — Tue, 23 Oct 2007 14:33:28 GMT

ron paul, the anti choice, pro corporate go-pee-er.

yeah, he's real different.

LMAO

Oh-eight (R): Careful what you wish for

Daniel — Tue, 23 Oct 2007 14:34:40 GMT

A new poll has Clinton tying all Republicans (and leading Romney) in the Southern states of North Carolina -- so the GOP will have more than a tough time:
http://www.campaigndiaries.com/2007/10/morning-polls-clinton-ties-republicans.html

Oh-eight (R): Careful what you wish for

John B, Des Moines, IA — Tue, 23 Oct 2007 14:37:42 GMT

All you have to do is read this thread to see that Hillary makes conservatives angry to the point of irrationality. On the one hand that could ensure that every conservative shows up at the polls to vote against her. On the other hand the anger and attacks are so irrational it has to make centrist voters wonder what the conservatives are smoking.

Oh-eight (R): Careful what you wish for

pat, huntington, ny — Tue, 23 Oct 2007 14:41:27 GMT

All the above negative comments about Hillary, purporting to speak on behalf of the nation's majority, seem to all be written from the pen of a single person...particuarly since Hillary has more than 50% support of likely Dem. Primary/Caucus voters nationally, and beats ALL republican top candidates in head to head polls in the big swing states [some by double digits, some just at the margin of error]. Either that, or some people above think they've signed onto FoxNews.com.

Oh-eight (R): Careful what you wish for

Jennifer, Derry, ZNH — Tue, 23 Oct 2007 14:41:52 GMT

To J Spencer, you said: " Take care of yourself only?" I respond: God does not like or want self righteous or self indulegent people either, my friend. Hating is not healthy but simple clarity is most welcomed.

Oh-eight (R): Careful what you wish for

Lek — Tue, 23 Oct 2007 14:43:59 GMT

Another verdict on the clinton

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/21/AR2007102101069.html

Oh-eight (R): Careful what you wish for

jerry/corpus christi texas — Tue, 23 Oct 2007 14:46:53 GMT

Oh I can match Van here......

President Clinton said on March 23, 1993 at a press conference: "My economic package will cut $500 billion from the deficit in five years." Yet the projected deficit in 1998 with Clinton's budget is $234 billion, the projected deficit in 2001 with Clinton budget is $401 billion.(These figures come from Bill Clinton's budget document, "A Vision of Change for America."-Feb. 1993.

Oh-eight (R): Careful what you wish for

Lek — Tue, 23 Oct 2007 14:47:05 GMT

Another verdict on the clinton

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/21/AR2007102101069.html

Oh-eight (R): Careful what you wish for

Mike Richards, Davis, CA — Tue, 23 Oct 2007 14:47:10 GMT

Clinton-hating is all the GOP has left; they are going to be trounced in 2008, and they have it coming; this administration is the worst in American history. She has run a good, center-based campaign; she is smart, savvy and not the liberal nut case that the right makes her out to be. Only question left is who she picks for VP, and I still think it's Obama.

Oh-eight (R): Careful what you wish for

Hillary Hater — Tue, 23 Oct 2007 14:48:03 GMT

I supposed Hillary CLinton killed him. You she has killed every one that stand in her way to power.

Oh-eight (R): Careful what you wish for

Lek — Tue, 23 Oct 2007 14:49:39 GMT

Campaign diaries is a fraudulent website created by the Clinton's campaign. Please don't believe it. The clinton's campaign will go extra lenght to push polls without credibility.

Oh-eight (R): Careful what you wish for

jerry/corpus christi texas — Tue, 23 Oct 2007 14:50:21 GMT

Amy B;

What has Hillary Clinton done in the Senate?
What bill has she put on the president's desk?
What company has Hillary Clinton run?
What city has Hillary Clinton run?
What great foreign policy victory has Hillary Clinton won?

give us some examples of her greatest victory's!

Oh-eight (R): Careful what you wish for

Don Duvall Midwest City Okla — Tue, 23 Oct 2007 14:55:51 GMT

a vote for Clinton is a a vote for a socialist.
If you've ever read the Comunist Manifesto written
by Karl Marx you'll find Clinton's game plan for
social reform.One reason President Chavez supports her.Wake up people,do we really want a socialists for
President of these United States?

Oh-eight (R): Careful what you wish for

K., Austin — Tue, 23 Oct 2007 14:57:01 GMT

Actually the one lying in October '92 was Clinton/Carville. The last two quarter of that year were red hot and therefore he inherited a great economy. And he knows it. He's not as stupid as he believes most of you are. Recessions happen every once in a while and that one was a short and shallow one. Do you really think Clinton being inaugurated suddenly lit the economy up? By contrast the last two quarters of 2000 were horrible and a sign of what was to come. He inherited a the beginning of an incredible economic cycle and left a bad one behind. Should he get the blame or credit for either...no. Cycles happen in any economy. It's the American people that make it all work.

Also, the budget is determined by congress. The '94 elections had more to do with the fiscal restraint that was shown until 2000. It was Bush and idiots like Delay, Stevens and Hastert that pissed it away. They began behaving like old school Dems using taxpayer money to "stay elected" and covering up for jerks like Foley.

Please, throw Hilary out there as the locked up nominee in January and let the American people spend 10 months being reminded what and old school democrat is about. Hopefully the GOP will be smart enough to put forward anybody other than Mitt or Rudy so the debate can be centered on policy and not personality. Huckabee would run circles around her if it actually came down to issues.

Oh-eight (R): Careful what you wish for

Amy B Portland ME — Tue, 23 Oct 2007 15:00:48 GMT

Hillary had an affair? How cool! And what would that have to do how she would handle Iran?
If America doesn't elect the smartest person it can find in '08, its over. We are falling behind the rest of the world, in case you hadn't noticed. We gotta get real.

Oh-eight (R): Careful what you wish for

Sue Kline, Bennington, VT — Tue, 23 Oct 2007 15:03:29 GMT

Why don't you good ol' boys give it a rest. You are allowing the so-called jounalists of the internet to whip you into a frenzy over Hillary. Don't you know they are just stirring everyone up so they can sit back and grin about their power to do so? They can't come up with anything concrete against Hillary, so they say she is "divisive", without explaining anything. Why don,t we quit taking the bait, and just sit back ourselves and grin about the power we the people have come election day?

Oh-eight (R): Careful what you wish for

Stan Wert, Ames, Iowa — Tue, 23 Oct 2007 15:14:55 GMT

I don't know, I think people generally agree the woman [Hillary] is brilliant, competent and tough.

============

Any examples on how she is any of the above?

There are quite a few examples on how she is corrupt, power hungry, naive, and a hypocrite.

Oh-eight (R): Careful what you wish for

Tue, 23 Oct 2007 15:15:29 GMT

Hillary will win in a landslide. We are watching it happen already.She will be even better than her husband.

Oh-eight (R): Careful what you wish for

Stephen, N.H. — Tue, 23 Oct 2007 15:20:49 GMT

Oh-eight (R): Careful what you wish for

ClubbieTim — Tue, 23 Oct 2007 15:20:58 GMT

I'm not a Clinton fan, but I think that candidates should lead not tear down, which has been the theme of politics for the last 15 years.

Its a scare tactic, much like GOP mantra of "vote for me or you'll die!" By the way, I'm registered republican...

Ron Paul's ideas are like wasabi, in small doses they're great, in large quantities a mess.

Why Huckabee is loved is solely on the basis of the GOP's political block. However, anytime you want someone with a lazy eye leading a nation, you've got problems...

I find that voting for the candidate with the best head of hair tends to be the most successful for foreign relations (remember Reagan's hair? Bill's hair?) So, if the GOP can't muster up a non-folically challenged candidate, it will be Hillary, by way of the best head of hair.

Mitt's your president if he's "Christian" enough. To me he's most "Christian" looking guy in the group...

Oh-eight (R): Careful what you wish for

Nathan — Tue, 23 Oct 2007 15:23:15 GMT

No - should have covered hillary's affair with Vince Foster before bill had him assassinated. Vince Foster was a man of great conviction and long time state leader in Arkansas, not likely to have committed suicide.

Oh-eight (R): Careful what you wish for

TIRED OF THE CLINTONS — Tue, 23 Oct 2007 15:25:25 GMT

WE HAVE ALREADY HAD A PREVIEW OF THE CLINTON CABINET FROM THE 90'S. BILL ALLOWED HILLARY TO CHOOSE THE CABINET. THE CABINET OF BILL WAS THE CAFE SCENE IN STARWARS. THE GAGGLE OF INCOMPENTENT STRANGE WOMEN WAS A DISASTER FOR OUR COUNTRY. HILLARY IS AN IGNORANT LEADER, HER CHOICES FOR THE LEADERSHIP POSITIONS IN BILL'S GOVERNMENT PROVED THAT.

Oh-eight (R): Careful what you wish for

Roy Mehring, Midway, Arkansas — Tue, 23 Oct 2007 15:35:03 GMT

Is it true that Bill Clinton has dibs on the Lincoln
bedroom for his office work/play if Hillary gets
elected??

Oh-eight (R): Careful what you wish for

American Voter — Tue, 23 Oct 2007 15:37:08 GMT

The Clinton's were lying scum bags then & they're lying scum bags still. What's changed???

Oh-eight (R): Careful what you wish for

David in Arkansas — Tue, 23 Oct 2007 15:41:02 GMT

People talk about Hillary's "brilliance" -- but where is it, exactly? She undoubtedly has the most brilliant (politically) "campaign manager".

But I don't hear anything Hillary is saying that reeks of "brilliance" or "high intellect" or "genius". She has lots of ideas America "can't afford".

Personally, I find Huckabee to be the smartest candidate in the presidential race at this time. Can he win? Possibly -- since the debate his contributions are up markedly, and if he starts raising more money, he'll be given a little respect from the media, which has pretty much snubbed him in favor of "first tier" candidates.

Aside from Huckabee's deeper thinking, he conveys an absolute sense of honesty and integrity that no other candidate does. That's not to say there aren't others who are worthy; but Huckabee clearly doesn't participate in the usual political processes, preferring instead to be positive and to pose ideas that will uplift the nation. Refreshing.

Oh-eight (R): Careful what you wish for

Richard in Idaho — Tue, 23 Oct 2007 15:43:42 GMT

How, pray tell, is Hillary any different than the GOP front runners? She will not get the troops out of Iraq until 2013 (her own words). She has not said she would repeal any of the attacks on our personal liberties (Patriot Act). She has not committed to any limits on spending, which has caused the dollar to deflate against all other currencies. Her version of universal health care is the same as Romney's proposal; basically force those who work but claim to not afford it to get insurance. In fact there is evidence to conclude that Bush and Clinton are one and the same. See the link. http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2007/cbarchive_20070928.html

So I'm left wondering other than hating Bush, why the hell vote for her. Let's look to someone who is talking a different game than the Dem or GOP front runners.

Oh-eight (R): Careful what you wish for

Wake up — Tue, 23 Oct 2007 15:59:53 GMT

"I would hate to see the world not at war and America with a surplus. I love being lied to constantly and billions of doallars being wasted on a fake war.
Boy the Clinton days were just a living hell."

Ditto, in spades. Won't happen for 20-30 years tho, no matter who gets in, cause we're all going to be paying off the trillion dollar war debt, and sucking down all the recessions caused by the dislocation and lack of business caused by all the infrastructure failures, both natural and manmade and the total inability and incompetence of anyone in authority to deal with it.

As for: "Too bad no one covered Hillary's affair with Vince Foster before he died."
GIVE ME A BREAK!
Take the tin foil out of your hat buddy.

But you know what, even if that ridiculous smear was true - WHO CARES!!!!

If you took out everyone in office who ever cheated on their spouse - male, femal, straight, or gay, - THERE'D BE NO ONE LEFT

The issue isn't who you sleep with. It's what you do when you wake up.

Oh-eight (R): Careful what you wish for

Gerry Ridge, Austin Texas — Tue, 23 Oct 2007 16:23:25 GMT

Looking through the postings, it looks like people are starting to get what Hillary is really all about. Nothing.

Oh-eight (R): Careful what you wish for

Barbara C. — Tue, 23 Oct 2007 16:41:18 GMT

I find it curious that the Republicans are worried more about WINNING than their hard core issues this year. For them to promote Giuliani as a front runner so far, I find Rudy just as Liberal on some issues as Hillary. If the Republicans really want to stick to their hard core "Family Values" I say the pick of the litter is Huckabee. But Huckabee...Alas...is too nice for the "SMARM FACTOR" that runs the GOP.

Oh-eight (R): Careful what you wish for

Class Warrior, D.C. — Tue, 23 Oct 2007 17:11:29 GMT

Though I hate Bush, Cheney, the GOP and everything they stand for and have done to this country, I thoroughly agree with Goldberg. Hil's the GOP's ticket to four more (or eight mroe) years.

Oh-eight (R): Careful what you wish for

vanreuter, NY NY — Tue, 23 Oct 2007 17:11:53 GMT

First of all, Van from NY, you are a moron. There is a major, clear, and simple to understand difference between a "budget surplus" and the "national debt." Please do some research before you waste so much of your own time.

Secondly, I LIKE MIKE. It also appears that Chuck Norris likes Mike! Awesome.

Hillary is clearly polarizing, which is good for republicans and Americans, and she is a socialist. Go to work and pay for your own troubles, then take care of your family and the poor in your area. DUH!

WWW.MIKEHUCKABEE.COM

Stephen, N.H. (Sent Tuesday, October 23, 2007 11:20 AM)

I am so sorry that I am a moron. I can't grasp big concepts like you republicans. You are smart to like someone who doesn't accept scientific truth and compares a woman's right to choose with the "Holocaust", because these are the issues that will resonate with 12% percent of the electorate and sweep Huck to victory over us democratic morons who don't know the difference between the national debt and the budget surplus;

This is about the budget surplus;
President Clinton announces another record budget surplus

From CNN White House Correspondent Kelly Wallace

September 27, 2000
Web posted at: 4:51 p.m. EDT (2051 GMT)

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Clinton announced Wednesday that the federal budget surplus for fiscal year 2000 amounted to at least $230 billion, making it the largest in U.S. history and topping last year's record surplus of $122.7 billion.
http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/09/27/clinton.surplus/

This is about the national debt (Gee, I hope I got that right. This is so complicated.)
Clinton announces record payment on national debt

By John King/CNN

May 1, 2000
Web posted at: 5:13 p.m. EDT (2113 GMT)

WASHINGTON (CNN) - President Bill Clinton said Monday that the United States would pay off $216 billion in debt this year, bringing to $355 billion the amount of the nation's debt paid down in the three years since the government balanced the budget and began running surpluses.
In a written statement, Clinton said the $216 billion payment represented the largest debt paydown in American history, and he said that the federal government's long-term debt is now $2.4 trillion lower than projected to be when he first took office.

However, the U.S. government still has a long way to go before it pays down the entire national debt, which now stands at $5.7 trillion.
http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/05/01/clinton.debt/

This references the Clinton administration's fiscal successes at reducing both the national debt and the budget deficit;

"In 1993 President Clinton inherited the deficit spending problem and did more than just talk about it; he fixed it. In his first two years and with a cooperative Democratic Congress he set the course for the best economy this country has ever experienced. Then he worked with what could be characterized as the most hostile Congress in history, led by Republicans for the last six years of his administration. Yet, under constant personal attacks from the right, he still managed to get the growth of the debt down to 0.32% (one third of one percent) his last year in office. Had his policies been followed for one more year the debt would have been reduced for the first time since the Kennedy administration."

http://www.cedarcomm.com/~stevelm1/usdebt.htm

If only I could do the research, I wouldn't be such a moron.

Van

Oh-eight (R): Careful what you wish for

Tue, 23 Oct 2007 17:18:09 GMT

Barbara, you are right on. AND Hillary will still win.

Oh-eight (R): Careful what you wish for

Jan, Nashua, NH — Tue, 23 Oct 2007 17:34:54 GMT

Seriously, do the Republicans even have any new ideas?
The vast majority of us don't like the old ones -- unending debt, unending war, and unending intrusion into our privacy.

I think I've guessed the GOP Campaign Slogan for the 2008 Thumpin' --
"We want YOU... to HATE HILLARY too!!"

The Republicants are sooo sad.

Oh-eight (R): Careful what you wish for

Georgiaboi, Columbus GA — Tue, 23 Oct 2007 17:37:56 GMT

Bush-Clinton-Clinton-Bush-Bush-Clinton-Clinton. Who would want that in a democratic society. We have an entirely new set of problems that require compromise and working together. These two families have a history of being divisive. This is not the time for gridlock in Washington but the time for action. This is a crucial election that will probably determine the fate of the U.S., whether we remain a super power and an influence in the world or suffer the same fate that Rome suffered. Hillary is a master politician. We don't need a politician in office we need a leader.

The republican hate alone probably won't bring hillary down but if you mobilize the republican base with someone they can vote for and add the independent vote she will struggle. There are many democrats that have vowed not to vote for her and many independents that are turned off by her divisiveness. Statistics are not the gospel truth.

Oh-eight (R): Careful what you wish for

Brently, Colorado Springs, CO — Tue, 23 Oct 2007 17:41:53 GMT

Check out this interview of Mike Huckabee by Glenn Beck:

http://www.mikehuckabee.com/index.cfm?FuseAction=Blogs.View&Blog_id=597

Oh-eight (R): Careful what you wish for

John S. Alexander, Edinboro, PA — Tue, 23 Oct 2007 17:47:15 GMT

Clinton doesn't even have the nomination yet and everyone is ready to write off the election. Some one else may pull forward it has happened many times before in our history, polls and opinions are not facts or votes for a candidate. I do know one thing though the dems are energized, the independents have fallen away from the repukes and there are no more Raygun democrats since Bush 1, also your base of taliban supporters is talking third party, it does not bode well for you on these facts. Chew on that for a time and then tell me you believe you got the general election sewed up. Your vocalizations on this site show a marked effort to hide your fear with ranting about nothing. As Nikita said, "WE WILL BURY U" Jerry will point out that I used a communists words and come to the conclusion that I am one too.
That is called intelligence in the rebumblekin party.

Oh-eight (R): Careful what you wish for

itssimple — Tue, 23 Oct 2007 17:50:59 GMT

I'm noticing a trend among the un-educated masses -
the term ' socialist' has now replaced 'communist'.
Of course it's always applied to democrats because they tend to cater to the needs and issues of the many rather than the few - unlike their republican
now 'neocon' counterparts....who prefer to keep power in the hands of select individuals and corporate representatives that know what's best for us. Never socialists, these individuals would strip the clothes off their mother's back to increase the bottom line - an occasional war in oil-rich territory isn't ever far from their collective little minds. These are the
heros of those that would oppose 'socializing' our government. The fact is, millions rely on Social Security and Medicare benefits to survive....40 million more have no medical benefits. We still have the most expensive medical care anywhere in the western world, and not by any means the best track record of results - all the while, big pharma makes massive profits. On the other hand, the VA system is socialized medicine in every sense, and will be the model used to forge a larger national system of socialized medicine when that day comes (but not before we dump the GOP permanently). We have a long way to go before anyone can rightly call presidential candidates socialists, although their long terms goals
may envision socialized medicine down the road.

In the future, the most favored candidates will all
espouse both social causes and socialized solutions - now that will be the day when the elitists of Ron Paul's Libertarian party and their kindred republicans
will become a footnote in the historical narrative of the 'bad old times.

Oh-eight (R): Careful what you wish for

Richard in Idaho — Tue, 23 Oct 2007 17:59:07 GMT

Ya know, I've posted on several of these political blogs asking the question; What is the difference between Hillary and the front running GOP candidates? I never seem to get a response. Oh, once in a while someone point out the budgetary successes Bill had. However, I would point out that was the 90's and today we are in a very completely different environment where Hillary is committed to war, increased spending, maintaining the powers of the imperial Presidency. How is this different than what the leading GOP hacks are saying? Please, someone respond, but do us all a favor and back your response with evidence rather than stating some gut feeling or stating "GOP bad."

Oh-eight (R): Careful what you wish for

Jason, Dallas, TX (Where we don't want you here BUSH) — Tue, 23 Oct 2007 18:27:14 GMT

Now we just need a vote to get rid of the electoral college system and allow us to have a one person/one vote system so that the people we really want to elect make it into the office we elect them to instead of the popular vote failing to capture the electoral college votes...... Why doesn't anyone else see this as a problem?

Oh-eight (R): Careful what you wish for

los angeles — Tue, 23 Oct 2007 18:39:53 GMT

Why are the so called Consertives so terrified of Hillary, if they are so convinced she will lose?
What makes Rudy such a hero? The majority of Americans still remember the Rudy anxious Republicans want us to forget. There was a Rudy before 9/11 and we know him. He got very rich off of
the Heroism of the true Heroes of 9/11, we cannot allow him to to use them to advance his altimate political ambition. He did not do anything out of the ordinary on 9/11, he is an egomaniacal opportunist.

Oh-eight (R): Careful what you wish for

Caj. los angeles — Tue, 23 Oct 2007 18:40:42 GMT

Oh-eight (R): Careful what you wish for

John Doe, Seattle, Wash — Tue, 23 Oct 2007 19:06:37 GMT

re: Romney

One thing you should know about all Mormons,....they all strive to be a god with their own planet to rule over. Romney is well on his way to his objective!

See...."Mormonism in a Nutshell"
http://www.carm.org/lds/nutshell.htm

Oh-eight (R): Careful what you wish for

Joseph Antley — Tue, 23 Oct 2007 19:19:06 GMT

Mitt Romney continues to impress me. He's defied every odd and is actually rising in South Carolina, which a few months ago no one could have predicted. A Mormon winning first or second in the hard-core Evangelicalized South Carolina primary? Never.

Oh-eight (R): Careful what you wish for

Nick L, Elizabethtown, KY. — Tue, 23 Oct 2007 19:20:04 GMT

First of all Dick Morris became irrelevant the moment he signed on with FakeNews. I would remind all you Hillary haters that the Clintons have not yet lost a fight. Please try no to be so smug for it betrays reality and the facts and it’s embarrassing.

Conservatives and most Repubs are the preverbal sheep and Jonah Goldberg is leading you to the edge …so go right a head and jump! Who is he to judge the relevance of the Clintons? Remember that he and his mother did us all such a “great” service with the Lewinsky distraction which eventually lead to the Bush administration, the 9/11 attacks, the war in Iraq, Abu Ghraib, the total lack of American prestige, the treasonous outing of a CIA operative, the end of civil liberties, Katrina and must I go on…

I like most progressive thinkers can see the forest beyond the trees. We see a President Hillary Clinton as our best hope to stick it to those that have nothing but contempt for her because she has the nerved to play them at their own game and win. Interesting how those that would deny Hillary her dues would do so against their on core principles and lets say support someone like Rudy? No surprise here.

Oh-eight (R): Careful what you wish for

Lee Holmes — Tue, 23 Oct 2007 19:45:27 GMT

78 million pages of documents from the Clinton presidency bearing upon any involvement in any position by the then-First Lady. This is according to the liberal NEWSWEEK/MSNBC magazine this week in it's efforts to get to the bottom of why less than one percent of these documents[all painting Hillary in a favourable light],have been released.
Bill blames the Bush administration for non-release. Not so fast,says NEWSWEEK which sent a team of reporters to the WH to ask Bush about these. ''There is no block on release. They haven't even been reviewed''. Thus armed,NEWSWEEK now grabs an FOIA writ to get the documents unjammed. A new roadblock reveals itself. This time,in the person of the Archives Director,who happens to be a FOB and was installed in his position by this president.[Clinton] who is stalling.
Those who wax eloquent over the ''secretiveness''of this administration never had to go up against the Clintons. As it now stands,over 77 million pages remain locked up at the request ,as NEWSWEEK has found out,not of the Bush administration but of Bill Clinton[,whose ledgermain in dishonesty is still quite sound,as we now know]. NEWSWEEK has indicated that it will continue to demand the release of documents bearing upon WHITEWATER,Hillarys healthcare scheme,the ROSE Law Office,CASA GRANDE,and other vintage documents that would by neccecity,cast a more unsavoury light upon Hillary than the Chinese already have.

Oh-eight (R): Careful what you wish for

Bot, Springfield — Tue, 23 Oct 2007 20:29:06 GMT

Mitt’s church, the Church of Jesus Christ (LDS) has been often misunderstood by Evangelical preachers in the past . . Some accused the Church of not believing in Christ and, therefore, not being a Christian religion . .

http://MormonsAreChristian.blogspot.com/ helps to clarify such misconceptions by examining early (First Century) Christianity's theology relating to baptism, the Godhead, the deity of Jesus Christ and His Atonement. Mitt’s church believes in the Jesus of the New Testament, who prayed to his Father in Heaven in the Garden of Gethsemane, not the Jesus portrayed in the creeds of the 4th Century.

The Church of Jesus Christ (LDS) adheres to Early Christian (New Testament) theology more closely than other Christian denominations. . Perhaps the reason Evangelical preachers such as Dr Jeffress of Dallas promote this mis-representation is to protect their flock (and their livlihood). It is encouraging to note that Evangelical preachers such as Don Wilton and Bob Jones III (along with Jay Sekulow and Mark DeMoss) have dis-avowed bigotry and appear now to have a moral and competent president as a priority..

Oh-eight (R): Careful what you wish for

Jared Richmond, SLC, UT — Tue, 23 Oct 2007 20:30:29 GMT

It could no be more obvious that the Dem's haven't a rainmaker they need to have in order to rally in this election. They have some OK candidates, but nothing more.

The republican's have a tired record on which to stand unless they make some loud and innovative platforms live.

Ron Paul was without question the most interesting contributor to the recent RNC debates, and given the divisive political climate in the fumbling USA, Ron Paul is undoubtedly the finest choice in 2008. Hillary would be a disaster, Romney, Giuliani, and McCain inspire nothing but caution or boredom. Put down your guns and embrace your country; Ron Paul in 2008.

Oh-eight (R): Careful what you wish for

sonya, atlanta, ga — Tue, 23 Oct 2007 20:53:55 GMT

Bottom line Hillary will not win. 1/3rd of the democrats will sit home and not vote, Republicans will come out in droves for an anti hillary vote and the independents will be faced with a lesser of two evil prospect. I suspect, they will tend to vote for Rudy who is a social liberal and war hawk. I am a woman and lifelong democrat but I will never left a lever in favor of voting for Hillary. Hillary isn't about change (only ceremonial- man to woman president). She comes out of the same broken politics that gave us this divided country. So the Dems agains will nominate another looser.

Oh-eight (R): Careful what you wish for

TIM, LAWRENCEBURG, TN. — Tue, 23 Oct 2007 23:20:15 GMT

FRED HAS NO DIRT IN HIS BACKGROUND AND THATS TREMENDOUS! HE IS A NO NONSENSE STRAIGHT FORWARD MAN! HE HAS THE LOOK, THE WALK AND THE TALK OF BUFORD PUSSER AND THE COMMUNICATION SKILLS OF RONALD REAGAN! WOW! WHAT A GREAT PRESIDENT! CHECK OUT WWW.THOMPSONDEPOT.COM

Oh-eight (R): Careful what you wish for

Drew R., Azalea, OR — Wed, 24 Oct 2007 03:56:02 GMT

Why not get a President that will try to push us back to the U.S. Constitution? I have little regard for any of the Candidates but if I vote for one it will be Ron Paul. The rest of the GOP and all of the Dems are all whispy thieves, not saying Paul will be any better but why not take a chance?

Oh-eight (R): Careful what you wish for

John S. Alexander, Edinboro, PA — Wed, 24 Oct 2007 15:40:33 GMT

Her is the GOP slogan for next year, 'Are we not men, no we are devo'