Yes, its still early, but time is growing short for Republicans to reverse the trends. Although she isn't my first choice for the nomination, I think little by little her electability factor is moving up.

Poll: Clinton Leads Giuliani by 8


The powers that be have decided that she will be the next president. My guess is that her 'job' will be to bring back surpluses for Jeb to give away to his buddies after the 2016 election.

The powers that be have decided that she will be the next president. My guess is that her 'job' will be to bring back surpluses for Jeb to give away to his buddies after the 2016 election.

Posted by DARTHCHENEY

The jist of the complaints about GWB I read here mostly relate the fact that he is a corporate whore. fair enough.

There were at least 6 candidates on the stage in that debate the other night. One is undoubtedly the largest corporate whore by a huge margin.

which one do the democrats decide to get behind............that one.

hypocrites.

If it is to be a race between Hillary Clinton (it ain't over yet) and Rudolph Giuliani (also, ain't a done deal), do you think the "liberal" press will pay more attention to Giuliani's serial adultery, or to Clinton's husband's affair with Lewinsky?

hypocrites.

Anybody who speaks out against corporate politicians and then backs them is a hypocrite. Both the Reps and Dems are doing it. If you want to vote for big money and no change, then at least have the courage to admit thats what you want...

Eberly-
re: There were at least 6 candidates on the stage in that debate the other night. One is undoubtedly the largest corporate whore by a huge margin.

which one do the democrats decide to get behind............that one.

It ain't over yet.

If it comes down to Hillary VS Guiliani...for once I'm going to stay home on election day.

do you think the "liberal" press will pay more attention to Giuliani's serial adultery, or to Clinton's husband's affair with Lewinsky?

Good question.

In any case, tens of millions of democratic voters are going to vote for Hillary. These same voters would never vote for a republican corporate whore.

At least republican voters realize their candidates accept money from corporations and special interests.

Sure, our opinions count and the pollsters are listening to us. That's right. And we believe in leprechauns, too.

I predicted this months ago
both canidates are polarized
Hilarry's numbers from the getgo were as negative as they could get, Guilliani's were as postive as they would get
as the elction countinues you will see both of these canidate's numbers drift to the center with Hillary improving and Gulliani faltering in the polls

I predicted this months ago
both canidates are polarized
Hilarry's numbers from the getgo were as negative as they could get, Guilliani's were as postive as they would get
as the elction countinues you will see both of these canidate's numbers drift to the center with Hillary improving and Gulliani faltering in the polls

Posted by Doem at 2007-11-01 10:20 PM | Reply


I just want the formal record to reflect I am NO Hillaryite.

Larry Mohr

If it comes down to Hillary VS Guiliani...

It wouldn't matter who people voted for in this case.. They are basically the same.. Look at their stances and voting records...

Ghouliani will lose by more than eight if he continues to give every answer as:

I [verb] [direct object] [preposition] 9/11!

And we believe in leprechauns, too.

If I can prove leprechauns exist, will you lick my balls?

(My apologies if you haven't been watching Southpark the past few weeks.)

The Repubs are going to play Hillary's illegal driver's license answer over and over--Repubs won't vote for her.

The poll was before last night's debate.

And of course--shoot the moderator is the comment from her camp.

And this poll does the unique extrapolation or projecting an 8 point win a year from now!

There they go again! What'll they think of next?

Murphy

Hillary's been playing the gender card today.

This country is ripe for a quality 3rd party candidate. Will one emerge?

You know, with all this talk about Hillary's negatives, one kind of has to ask this simple question to see whether or not that is a factor:

Do you want someone you 'like' again over someone most qualifed?

Giuliani is certainly likeable, but will America really forget that the one leading us should have been Bush? That when Katrina came he failed American citizens? That all through his presidency and the aftermath of 9/11 the GOP stood in lockstep with the man who attacked a country who didn't attack us, and in the process cost us untold international respect and trillions of dollars. All while driving anti-American sentiment through the roof with friends and foes alike? I don't think so.

When America considers that Bill Clinton, who left the country better than he found it, will be there to help steer the floundering ship that is our nation back on course, I suspect Hillary will win by a landslide. Even though we like Rudi as the inspirational figure we needed after 9/11, I doubt America will forget who didn't, and which party hasn't served America well the last 6 years with unfettered control.

I vote for competence - someone who can turn America around, 'cause all in all most of us have to admit we don't feel as optimistic as we did in 2000. Both sides of the aisle.

AU promotes Hillary as 'qualified'!!!

Qualified to do what? Turn our nation into a socialist country, and where the government takes over almost 1/3 of our economy?

What has she ever done to govern? NADA! ZIP!

She is 'qualified' to stand by and watch her philandering husband embarrass the entire USA with his blowjobs and Cohiba dildo action!

She is 'qualified' to try and stuff New York state's ballot boxes with votes from illegal aliens who have been given NY driver's licenses and voter registration cards by the DEMOCRATIC governor!

You all know that, too! However, you are gang members and any way you can win, win, win for the 'team' is okay by you ... right? Voter fraud is OKAY if practiced by Democratics ... isn't that correct?

You slavish devotees to party over nation make me sick!

TAD

If you're not already on blood pressure meds, I'd be prepared because NO Republican is going to win the WH in 2008 - period.

AU advises, "If you're not already on blood pressure meds, I'd be prepared because NO Republican is going to win the WH in 2008 - period."

I actually don't care, AU. If a Republican loses ... so what? No skin off my nose.

The problem arises if Hillary is the nominee. At that time, it is a sure loss for Democratics, because this country will not elect a wishy-washy communist female as president.

Bet a buck on it.

"Democratics"

I often wonder: does Tad ever realize the only point he's making is he doesn't know how to spell Democrats?

Danforth wonders, "I often wonder: does Tad ever realize the only point he's making is he doesn't know how to spell Democrats?"

Republican party ... republicans

Democratic party ... democratics

None of you is actually a "democrat", and since you are more likely to be stuffing the ballot boxes than promoting any sort of real democracy ...

The term "democratic" has a negative sound to it, and that's why you like to call yourselves "democrats", and in the same way that you socialists don't like to be associated with "red" and so you have Republicans identified with that color ...

What a joke you mandarins just happen to be with your "face" ...

"Democratic party ... democratics"

Ok, you'd willingly flunk a spelling or English final. And you wear your stupidity proudly.

Carry on.

Dan tries to insult, "Ok, you'd willingly flunk a spelling or English final. And you wear your stupidity proudly. Carry on."

BS! What a lie! This has nothing (nada, zip) to do with "spelling"!

It is so amazing to me ... that you democratics MUST invariably lie, in order to vilify and defame what you perceive to be your political opponents...

... then whine like 2 year olds when you get some of your own medicine, in return ...!!!

The People's Progressive Democratic Party of puling poltroonery!

Run, run, run ... the Globe is Warming!!!

" that's why you like to call yourselves "democrats"

Can't make a point without false assumptions, can you? I like to call myself "independent", and have for about a third of a century. Your purposeful jab at the "Democratics" merely exposes childishness, akin to those who constantly call your party "Rethuglicans" or "Repubelickans". Continue if you want, but it only demeans you.

Danforth continues to lie, "Can't make a point without false assumptions, can you?"

Listen a sec - I don't agree with those who make claims that they can't support, or fail in that responsibility. You don't rebut my 'false' assumptions, do you? You certainly don't convince me, whoever else might be knodding their collective head, along with you.

"I like to call myself "independent", and have for about a third of a century."

You can call yourselve Queen of the May, for all I care! If you did, I would believe you just the same as I do that you are 'independent'.

"Your purposeful jab at the "Democratics" merely exposes childishness, akin to those who constantly call your party "Rethuglicans" or "Repubelickans". Continue if you want, but it only demeans you."

For you terminally dense, I'll repeat: I'm not here to be nice to you. I'm here to describe the scummy, unpatriotic and selfishness displayed by the Democratic party and their stooges.

Got that, stooge?

People still talk to Tadowe? WTF for?

"You don't rebut my 'false' assumptions, do you"

Of course I do, dipshit. You claimed I'm a Democrat (or was that a Democratic?). I'm a life-long registered independent. You and other idiots just think I'm a Dem because I'm so against these so-called Republicans and their hijacking of the party, and you losers can't admit you backed the wrong horse(s). I guess that makes you, by your own barometer, a liar.

"what you perceive to be your political opponents..."

You're not my political opponent, I'm not a fan of either party. You're just a jagoff who thinks it's cute to use a made up word to jab your perceived enemies. But by all means, continue to make a fool of yourself.

BB displays cement for brains, "People still talk to Tadowe? WTF for?"

Because those who support Cohiba dildos continue to make me the subject of their discussions!!!

Really, Bob, are you actually this stupid? Or did the urge to curry Leftist/Democratic favor overpower your intellectual abilities?

Danforth

"I'm here to describe the scummy, unpatriotic and selfishness displayed by the Democratic party and their stooges.

Got that, stooge?"


It should be clear that Tadowe is a one trick pony. He's just a hate filled, vile little person with pus in his veins and the heart of a tick. The above quote is ALL Tadowe has ever said on this blog, and he just repeats it again and again and again. He has never made a valid point in the years I've been on this site, and has never added anything to any discussion on any subject. He just keeps repeating variations on the above quote. The only reason this little pile of the dogshit of humanity comes around is people keep talking to it for some reason.

Can't you stop? Think of the children.

What has she ever done to govern? NADA! ZIP!

She is 'qualified' to stand by and watch her philandering husband embarrass the entire USA with his blowjobs and Cohiba dildo action!

She is 'qualified' to try and stuff New York state's ballot boxes with votes from illegal aliens who have been given NY driver's licenses and voter registration cards by the DEMOCRATIC governor!

You all know that, too! However, you are gang members and any way you can win, win, win for the 'team' is okay by you ... right? Voter fraud is OKAY if practiced by Democratics ... isn't that correct?

You slavish devotees to party over nation make me sick!

Posted by tadowe


I think if you gather up your posts and submit them as evidence, you may be able to reopen your case.

"reopen "

ff

Danforth can't stop the fibs, "Of course I do, dipshit. You claimed I'm a Democrat (or was that a Democratic?)."

So what? Why is that a "false assumption"? If I say "... call yourselves 'Democrats'" how is that a 'false' assumption?

Indeed, and since you routinely attempt to insult and belittle me for my writing(s), I can presume you to be a Democratic, and be accurate in that deduction as to your philosophy, and not what you label yourself as being.

For that matter, I've looked at your postings and can't find even one (NOT 1) that is in support of Republicans, or even one expressing an 'independent' view! You just fool yourself with your self-serving independence ...

"I'm a life-long registered independent. You and other idiots just think I'm a Dem because I'm so against these so-called Republicans and their hijacking of the party, and you losers can't admit you backed the wrong horse(s). I guess that makes you, by your own barometer, a liar."

I'm not backing any horses. I promote the United States of America and our Constitution which guarantees my personal liberty. You, on the other hand, promote party over nation in trying to subvert the success of this war against force to rule ...

"You're not my political opponent, I'm not a fan of either party."

Actually, Dan, I've been trying to be fair to you and not get too insulting. However, if you EVER make me the subject of your insults, in the future, I will not be so kind. Leave me out of your efforts to curry favor with the Democratics.

Got that, Independent?

I still can't understand the support for Clinton. I could understand it if She and Guiliani were the only choices, but there are far better choices on both sides.

Clinton is tied in with big business and the war machine as much as Bush---she just has a better domestic program.

Giuliani is has no ideas and would just continue to bankrupt America with his weak ideas and character.

Not much of a future for America. But then we get what we deserve. We voted for it.

Midiman gets vague, " think if you gather up your posts and submit them as evidence, you may be able to reopen your case."

I presume you mean a "ban", correct?

I welcome any such efforts that can be displayed by Democratics that they are no such a thing as a "Democrat"! That our constitution is toilet paper to them! That they make prime examples of petty tyrants in order to silence disagreement(s)! That they will literally support the goals of the enemy we are fighting, to gain partisan political advantage!

Let the scum ban, mock and revile free speech!

Please ...

The fact that Clinton Leads Giuliani is the only bright spot. At least we aren't choosing another total person with no concept of America of American values. Clinton might not be the best candidate, but she is better than any republican.

Bob gets a bit too obvious, "Clinton is tied in with big business and the war machine as much as Bush---she just has a better domestic program."

Business has in the past and continues to donate more money to Democratics than they do to Republicans. That is so, because they know that the Democratics are more likely to provide quid pro quo for their efforts than are Republicans.

Besides, Bob, what 'domestic' program are you talking about? More taxes to put the brakes on our economy -- expanding despite the gloom and doom reporting by the puppet media? More government control of medicine?

You'll just love mandatory hair, blood and urine testing to assure the government that you aren't damaging their property, won't you? That way, all those drug addicted, HIV positive needle users can be put into institutions to protect you and your Democratic neighbors from their ilk.

Won't be any need to worry about Republicans, then, because there won't be any! They'll all be dead waiting on their livers, hearts and lungs, or too afraid of being treated with insulin shock for their ugly conservative philosophy ...

"Giuliani is has no ideas and would just continue to bankrupt America with his weak ideas and character."

Giuliani has no ideas and they are weak, is that right, Mr. I've never taken drugs so the hair sample will show I'm a true Democratic?

You should read my 5:28 am post again.

TAD says:





























in one form or another........

"You slavish devotees to party over nation make me sick!"

No, it doesn't. People usually avoid that which makes them "sick."

Unless there's another reason...

"I'm not here to be nice to you. I'm here to describe the scummy..."

Masochism! That's the answer! Especially when considering:

If Hillary wins the Democrat ticket, then the only thing any Republican hopeful should do is become the nominee --- because the next President will be a man.

Listen liberals, atheists, and scoffers and skeptics......

God has already determined that the next President will be a man --- for two terms.


Ok, ok..... just wait and see.

You should read my 5:28 am post again.

Everyone should read my 5:28am post again.

Hans the IT Pro says, "No, it doesn't. People usually avoid that which makes them 'sick.'"

As I've mentioned, I'm here to give you hatemongers some of your own medicine, Dumbo.

"Masochism! That's the answer! Especially when considering: Hated and reviled from the 1st grade on (here)."

My experience with my fellow man has inured me to being defammed, reviled and discriminated against, for whatever reasons/excuses. That you, among others here, are an example of that effort demonstrates its commonality ... and not my reaction to it. Indeed, and as I mentioned, I learned early on to punch you jerks in the nose for your efforts!

You and your ilk are the 'masochists' for wanting more. Besides, and as I've also mentioned, it provides a demonstration of what I say about you Democratics: You invariably attempt to make the messenger your subject of discussion. That is so because you are actually incapable of supporting your own political philosophy(s) and MUST misdirect any issue under discussion and to turn it into a personal attack.

Here you are, Hansi, doing exactly that, neurotically, I might add.

However, I want to thank you, as I always do, Hans Kutchen! You are about the most prime example of obsessive behavior; outside of Alex, that is, that I could hope for!

Danke.

There must be thousands of people in this country better qualified to run things than the people we have running for office now. There definitely has to be a new way of choosing the candidates rather than having select people from both parties deciding who is going to run and limiting the field.

As for myself, I wouold like to see all nominations come from ordinary citizens, and then have local run offs until the finalists are selected on a national basis.

There should be definite answers to questions provided by all candidates rather than the dancing bear acts the debates are turning into.

BB insists, "Everyone should read my 5:28am post again."

Yes, do as Bob says and not as Bob does.

However, he is exactly right! Do not respond to me by trying to make me the subject of your collective conversations ... unless you are masochists, that is.

Then, follow Hans' lead ... that's the ticket!

Latest Pew Research and USA Today polls shows Democrats leading in every catagory from terrorism to the economy by at least double digits, and in some cases by more than twice the GOP number.

Party identification? Democrat 50% Republican 36%

Generic Congressional ballot: Democrat 59% Republican 36%

There's NO way a Republican will be elected President in 2008. The numbers in the Democrat column in every area are only growing bigger as time goes on, while the GOP loses support. America isn't as stupid as some think.

That's the trouble with running the country based on 'polls' -- it dilutes *everything*!

Add all the IQs and then divide by the sample to get a dumbed down opinion on anything under the Sun!

Democratics are NOT IN ANY WAY TOUGH ON TERRORISM ... but your idiotic 'poll' says they are!?!

So much for 'polls' is what I say to that kind of stupiditiy!

National health care is essential. All other industrialised nations on the planet have it except the United States. Those nations seem to be doing very well. I would rather my money go to health rather than wars for no reason.

The United States is lagging in education--no one seems to care. None of the candidates is talking about any serious changes in the education system.

The prisons are overflowing with prisoners who will most likely be released back into society at some future point.

None of the candidates is talking about the prison system and how to fix it.

Drugs still plague the nation and none of the candidates have any kind of plan except to throw more people in prison.

We have candidates with no ideas.

Bob wants a freebie, "National health care is essential."

Yes, indeed! The government should have access to everyone's medical records!

They must assure themselves that you are taking good care of their property and aren't damaging it in any 'illegal, immoral or harmful' way. To gain that assurance, they will mandatorily test you for ALL diseases and any harmful practices; e.g., smoking (anything), drinking to excess, eating improper foods or non-food items, driving without helmet or other safety devices. Indeed, the government may have to institutionalize some miscreants who refuse to abide by common-sense rules and regulations, or have a disease that could be transmitted through careless behavior.

Just like in the Armed Services ... and when the next Republican president and Congress gain control? Who will they institutionalize do you think? What records will they search, legitimately?

And, you dummy freeloaders think you have the intelligence to run this nation ...?

In a Democratic pig's eye!

"All other industrialised nations on the planet have it except the United States. Those nations seem to be doing very well. I would rather my money go to health rather than wars for no reason."

I think the medical care in Britain just outed a homosexual member of royalty, didn't they?

Will Clinton release her medical records for public scrutiny? Never mind ... a Republican will gain the presidency again, sometime ... huh?

Won't you love national medical care then?

America is the greatest, most powerful nation the planet has ever known, and we put spending money for killing foreign people that are no threat to us above the health care of our children.

I guess that shows our sense of values.

Throwing hundreds of thousands of people in prison without some sort of rehabilitation process and then releaseing them back into society really doesn't seem like a good plan to me.

Who will they institutionalize do you think?

TADOWE

I'll guess. Begins with a 'T' and ends with an 'E'.

Spending billions on hunting down people who just want to smoke a joint, eat some twinkies and watch the game doesn't seem like a good plan to me.

AU

Please don't feed the trolls.

Hans

Try discussing the issues yourself rather than fucking around with the trolls.

Why the devil any of you try to argue with a troll like TAD is beyond me. He's Limbaugh of the internet. I second BuffaloBob's motion.

BB orders, "Try discussing the issues yourself rather than fucking around with the trolls."

Yes, Hans, why don't you mind Bob? You are in for it now!

I suggest everyone avoid commenting to or about me, please. Bob is becoming a mental wreck trying to stop you from doing so!

Stop talking to me! That's the Democratic way, after all!

Sambargle seconds.

I third that motion! Avoid me like the plague!

You know you can't answer directly, and I'm on to the effort to make the messenger the subject ... so just follow orders and mind Bob!

The future of our country is at stake in the next election. If it is Clinton or Giuliani, I don't hold much hope for the United States to remain in its premier position of world leadership for very long.

Kucinich and Paul are the most honest of the candidates, but I think Kucinich has the edge in intelligence and plans for the future. Both have been correct in the past, and had we followed their lead at the time, this country would be in far better shape today. Even Nixon never got the country as divided as it is today. I don't think the country has been this divided since the Civil War.

Bob continues to 'feed the troll', "Spending billions on hunting down people who just want to smoke a joint, eat some twinkies and watch the game doesn't seem like a good plan to me."

Why do you have to belittle everything, Bob? The state will seize a child from a nursing mother to test it for disease ... why would they hesitate to order your life around, if they have the 'rules' to do so?

Look how the fed goes after states with medical marijuana laws???!!! They won't hesitate to ban the substance from your body ... or not treat you, if you are one of those 'masochists' who insist on your individual liberty(s).

The state could have entered that home, tested that baby, and left without a murmer ...

... but NO! They had to make an example of this incident to show their power to seize and detain for days, in order to take a moment to draw six drops of blood to test for their 'rules'!

The socialist government will NOT allow you to abuse the healthcare system and will militate against those who do so!!!

WATCH and believe me later, girly ...

BB sucks, "I think Kucinich has the edge in intelligence ..."

Maybe so, just too bad the commie and Paul look like the typical schoolyard rat finks, eh?

If it does come down to Giuliani or Clinton, I would almost rather have it be Giuliani.

With Giuliani, the US will go downhill much faster with the push given by Bush for the last few years. That being the case, the people of the US may finally wake up after half of them have lost their homes and their kids get blown up in more wars for nothing and the terrorists finally nuke New York. The shock may finally have people thinking before they vote.

With Clinton, the decline would be much slower and people may not realise what danger the country is in for another fifty years. By that time several other countrys that have focused on education, health care, and their prison systems will have passed us by in several areas.

the people of the US may finally wake up after half of them have lost their homes

Yeah, and you aren't a loon either.

Eberly

At least I've never wimped out of a challenge at debate. Especially when I could pick my own moderator. I guess you had "other priorities".

I'd rather people like you think I was a loon than people like me think I was a coward.

But that's just us loons.

When America considers that Bill Clinton, who left the country better than he found it, will be there to help steer the floundering ship that is our nation back on course, I suspect Hillary will win by a landslide.

----

I hate this line of thinking. Vote for the candidate...not their spouse!!

I guess you had "other priorities".

As a matter of fact, most people you hate do have priorities bob.

responsible Americans who have jobs, families, pay taxes, involved in their community......you know, those people who you think are mindless idiots.

We all realize you don't have any priorities beyond conspiracy theories and obsessions with republicans and conservatives in general.

But I will admit I like the fact you are here displaying your looniness for my personal entertainment.

Eberly

I'm sorry--did you say something? Ever?

What we DO have, however, is a churlish and petulant president who will do everything in his power to throw the world, and more specifically the Middle East, into a turmoil before he leaves office.

It hasn't been easy for them, watching their grand scheme wither and die on the vine, plagued and eventually destroyed by their own incompetance.

Ah yes, the New Conservative Party, the neo-cons who were too arrogant to look in the mirror, too flushed with greed to recognize they were failing, too confident to realize that the hole they were digging was their own grave.

R.I.P. neo-cons. I can't even imagine what history is going to write on their tombstone.

"Business has in the past and continues to donate more money to Democratics than they do to Republicans. That is so, because they know that the Democratics are more likely to provide quid pro quo for their efforts than are Republicans."

Delusional doesn't quite cover that. I'm thinking serious brain damage.



Some people are missing the point here....

"She wins the South.

She polls evenly with voters who attend church at least once a week.

She splits families with a household income above $100,000.

She loses rural voters and men -- but only by a narrow margin.

All are constituencies Republicans have dominated for decades; George W. Bush won each by double-digit margins."

All people with a bad case of buyer's remorse with GW and willing to vote for a moderate Dem.

"In a hypothetical match-up between Hillary Clinton and Rudy Giuliani, bloc after bloc of traditionally Republican voters break for Clinton, leading to her lead by 8 percent."

The dingo. The dingo ate your baby.

PIRATE

I hate this line of thinking. Vote for the candidate...not their spouse!!

The nostalgia this country feels for the Bill Clinton era can't be overlooked when calculating how people vote.

Personally I think it's going to take the combined talents of both Clintons to change what the neo-cons have done to this country. FUBAR just about covers everything George Bush has done.

If I vote for Hillary and I get Bill with the package, I'm absolutely delighted.

Nostalgia for the relative peace and prosperity of the Clinton years, particularly after the debt and war of the Bushites, is attractive to much of America.

"Some people are missing the point here...."

"She wins the South.

She polls evenly with voters who attend church at least once a week.

She splits families with a household income above $100,000.

She loses rural voters and men -- but only by a narrow margin.

All are constituencies Republicans have dominated for decades; George W. Bush won each by double-digit margins."

All people with a bad case of buyer's remorse with GW and willing to vote for a moderate Dem."

Atta boy, Corker....repeat it often enough and even YOU will come to accept it as gospel...LOL.

Rasmussen is probably more correct:

"Sunday, October 28, 2007
Advertisment
The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey shows former Mayor Rudy Giuliani leading Senator Clinton 46% to 44% in an early look at a general election match-up. Clinton has a 47% to 45% edge on another Republican hopeful, Fred Thompson.

These numbers reflect a significant turnaround from recent polls."

Were these polls taken before she got clobbered at the debates? Bet they were.

"Atta boy, Corker....repeat it often enough and even YOU will come to accept it as gospel...LOL. Posted by jestgettinalong"

And how many times have you repeated the Rasmussen poll hoping SOMEONE would come to accept it as gospel . . . LOL.

"And how many times have you repeated the Rasmussen poll hoping SOMEONE would come to accept it as gospel . . . LOL."

Can't be as often as what YOU have been posting...that Rasmussen poll didn't appear until last Sunday.

"Can't be as often as what YOU have been posting..."

For example?

"Can't be as often as what YOU have been posting..."

"For example?"

Sorry...should have said what "HE" was posting. AND...that poll HASN'T been posted as often as what ol' Corker has been posting.

When Bush was elected, journalist Dionne made a realistic comment: that when the evangelicals come together they can easily determine who the President should be.

Right now this group is keeping a wait-and-see attitude. A few months from now, there is no telling if some issues or personality can arouse them to a second coming.

Hence the present poll numbers are unreliable right now. But hey, the biased media can try to twist numbers to make it appear like their favorites are riding on better poll numbers.

Do not count chickens yet.

Anyway, the destiny of this nation is still of great interest to Almighty God and He will have the last word in who becomes President.

Takitez-
Can I have a pony?

Sorry, Takitez, that was a bit forward of me. But you seem to have the big Guy's ear, so I guess I would actually like a pony. I mean, if it should come up...

Damn. I mean, don't bring it up or anything, but if you happen to be talking to the "Almighty God" about America and who's his pick for pres. and all and the topic of ponies happens to come up, well, you know...I'd like one. I'll name him/her (not picky, but I guess I just assumed that almighty God would give me a he pony) Reagan. I think it's a nice name for either a girl or a boy pony, don't you? It's clear from the election results in '80 and '84 that God Almighty has no outright objection to the name "Reagan", so...gosh, I'm so nervous and I guess I'm rambling. Longtime listener, first-time caller.

If I vote for Hillary and I get Bill with the package, I'm absolutely delighted.;

----

Hillary needs to stand on her own. I don't think she would want or ask to be a puppet for Bill either.

The nostalgia this country feels for the Bill Clinton era can't be overlooked when calculating how people vote.

----

This reminds me of the Manning brothers.

If I vote for Hillary and I get Bill with the package, I'm absolutely delighted.

Why? Would you be nearly as delighted if Giuliani won. Basically the same thing minus Bill. What if Bill were Giuliani's VP? Then it would be the same thing..

Still think voting Independent is a waste of a vote?

Vote for more of the same, you get more of the same.



Hillary is actually Giuliani in Drag...

JSPRAGUE

If Giuliani won the general I'd recommend that the world go out and cut their collective throats. The end would be faster and less painful.

If Giuliani won the general I'd recommend that the world go out and cut their collective throats. The end would be faster and less painful.

I'd recommend that if either of them win. There really is very little difference other than on a couple of wedge issues. On everything important, they are the same..

On everything important, they are the same..

Posted by jsprague at 2007-11-02 02:56


Sadly, you are correct. I just wish there were a stand out candidate with character (I know, I'm dreaming).