Hillary Clinton Is Wrong For America Thread

[BT]

Good analysis of Hillary's weaknesses Crane.

Your other normal knee jerk blaming of Republican bogeymen was skimmed over. It has the same meaning as hi, how are you doing. Like a stutter it is filtered. It is a prelude to the meat of your posts, often hidden, but always there.

The frontrunner's of both parties are playing prevent defense in the fourth quarter and hoping to run out the clock.


Hillary is not inevitable and Giuliani is wounded.

[yellow_crane]

Good analysis of Hillary's weaknesses Crane.

Your other normal knee jerk blaming of Republican bogeymen was skimmed over. It has the same meaning as hi, how are you doing. Like a stutter it is filtered. It is a prelude to the meat of your posts, often hidden, but always there.

The frontrunner's of both parties are playing prevent defense in the fourth quarter and hoping to run out the clock.


Hillary is not inevitable and Giuliani is wounded.


Thanks for the well-intentioned confrontation re my postings; they are duely noted in relevance.

Giuliani's wounds are old wounds.  Giuliani has always carried sen sen.  One perspective is how now voters seem ready to hold in abeyance any sins, in order to find something completely fresh.  They will accept some shit to get the sugar.

After watching the Republican debate, I saw Giuliani less wounded at that fight than Mitt.  Mitt's struggles for clarity suggested too much programming, similar to those seen of Hillary and Kerry.  It comes off as dishonest to those unable to articulate the full impression.

When I watched Huckabee, I wondered if the Democratic candidates were at all suddenly more worried.  If Huckabee contines to gain this kind of steam, putting him against Hillary would be like Mr. Rogers against that New York hotel hellion whose name escapes me.

I predict Huckabee gaining from both sides, Republicans and Democrats.

[The_Professor]

I would vote for Huckabee as I suspect many in evangelical circles would. Is he mainstream enough to win the general election?

[BT]

The blue tarp boys in the neighborhood like Huckabee. He is rising quickly. But they fear something will rise up out of his arkansas past, as playing the game in arkansas apparently requires a modicum of corruption, think southern sheriff or northern ward boss.

I think Romney would make a better president but he is a bit too polished and thus perhaps is vain. And that could cause his downfall. His religion doesn't bother me at all. If given the choice of him over Hillary i would choose him. If given the choice of him versus Richardson, i would have to think hard about it.

McCain is a maverick and i wouldn't vote for him ever. Ron Paul is a non starter.

[Plane]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20202692/displaymode/1107/s/2/

[R.R.]

DES MOINES REGISTER IOWA POLL
****NEW LEADERS****
Huckabee 29 (up 17% since October), Romney 24 (down 5), Giuliani 13, Thompson 9, McCain 7, Paul 7

Obama 28, Clinton 25, Edwards 23, Richardson 9, Biden 6

Obama leads among women, erasing Clinton?s October advantage.

[The_Professor]

The blue tarp boys in the neighborhood like Huckabee. He is rising quickly. But they fear something will rise up out of his arkansas past, as playing the game in arkansas apparently requires a modicum of corruption, think southern sheriff or northern ward boss.

I think Romney would make a better president but he is a bit too polished and thus perhaps is vain. And that could cause his downfall. His religion doesn't bother me at all. If given the choice of him over Hillary i would choose him. If given the choice of him versus Richardson, i would have to think hard about it.

McCain is a maverick and i wouldn't vote for him ever. Ron Paul is a non starter.

I concur. I would also vote for a Mormon over Hillary and that should say something about the anti-Hillary sentiment "out there". As far as something out of his past, I am getting a little sick and itred of the exacting scrutiny. Everyone has skeletons; only the REALLY BIG ones should count. Has it really gotten to the point where only St. Francis of Assissi could get elected for ANYTHING based on their past? Have we crossed a line somewhere along the way? (This applies across the board, regardless of Party, by the way.)

[Xavier_Onassis]

I don't see St Francis of Assissi, or anyone like him, being electable as an American political leader.

Dodd, Biden, are all Richardson experienced men whose expertise would benefit them as president because they have attained the respect of both sides.

Kucinich has many, many times the guts of any of the others. He is also a convincing speaker. Lamentably, he is short and his name is Dennis (as in the Menace) and Kucoinich (as in what the hell kind of name is that).

Obama lacks experience. Hillary has experience, but there are entire anti-Hillary cults in this country who have been in training at Hillary hating for decades. It seems to me mostly because she is an assertive woman, and some buffoons cannot abide assertive women.

[The_Professor]

"It seems to me mostly because she is an assertive woman, and some buffoons cannot abide assertive women."

Or is it becuase some did not like Bill Clinton's policies, therefore, they wouldn't like Hillary's?

[sirs]

I'd go with the latter

[Plane]

Saint Francis is a good example .

He was a rich and undiciplined youth that reformed himself drasticly in his adulthood.


Some people change direction.

[BT]

Has it really gotten to the point where only St. Francis of Assissi could get elected for ANYTHING based on their past? Have we crossed a line somewhere along the way? (This applies across the board, regardless of Party, by the way.)

I think there is a serious conflict between the desires for honest open public servants and leaders who can cut a deal and get results.

[Plane]

Has it really gotten to the point where only St. Francis of Assissi could get elected for ANYTHING based on their past? Have we crossed a line somewhere along the way? (This applies across the board, regardless of Party, by the way.)

I think there is a serious conflict between the desires for honest open public servants and leaders who can cut a deal and get results.

Yes, I feel that conflict myself.

[The_Professor]

Has it really gotten to the point where only St. Francis of Assissi could get elected for ANYTHING based on their past? Have we crossed a line somewhere along the way? (This applies across the board, regardless of Party, by the way.)

I think there is a serious conflict between the desires for honest open public servants and leaders who can cut a deal and get results.

But cannot there be both, e.g. an honest leader who CAN achieve results?

[BT]

But cannot there be both, e.g. an honest leader who CAN achieve results?

Certainly, but the safest course is to do nothing.