EvilMonkey

Actually, I robbed it from a post on another board.

julia

Hillary certainly could never win Virginia. That's fixed news country out there, all y'all.

There are more registered Dems than Reps in this country and poll after poll has shown that the majority of voters plan to vote Dem no matter who the nominee is.

Crying wolf is not very effective on Message Boards, btw.

__________________
The candidate does not speak for the campaign.

hotair

Commercially Flawed! Obama is a complete unknown.

After Ken Starr’s seven year witch hunt, there is nothing that is not known about the Clintons. Republican attack adds have nothing to target. If the “Swift Boaters” try to go after Hillary over Monica, it is going to blow up in their faces.

Obama is comparatively unknown. And is a prime target for attack adds. Especially those last minute quicky adds. Even if the adds turn out to be lies (big suprise), no one knows enough about Obama to effectively refute then, until after the election. Obama is the perfect target for Republican politics.

__________________
So long, and thanks for all of the fish!!!

julia

hee.

That's pretty funny to call the most transparent candidate an unknown.

Sounds like someone is reading too many Hillary memos.

__________________
The candidate does not speak for the campaign.

MarkMiller

Which is why we see right through him! LOL! (sorry I couldn't resist....and I really did try to!))

julia

Ok. Let's take the biggest failure of this admin, the Iraq war which Hrc voted for in the senate.

Obama has said that he would aim for 2 divisions out of Iraq per month. Hrc has not said anything specific but does state in her website she wants to leave advisors and a rapid action force in Iraq.
So when she says "Bring the troops home" there's a "but...., but ... and a but......"

Oh yes, she also said that she would obliterate Iran if they attack Israel with nuclear weapons. The most recent NIE said that Iran is not constructing nuclear weapons.

So why is she now commenting on hypotheticals when previously she refused to and what the heck is she doing joining the Bush Admin in the sword rattling for Iran?

Is that why she complies with the Bush admin and voted for Kyl-Lierberman last year which IDed the Iranian republican guard as a terrorist org? Does she trust this admin when most voters do not?

Her lack of clarity on Iraq and her war mongering for Iran is a strange kind of "transparency" that not many American voters would agree with.

__________________
The candidate does not speak for the campaign.

MarkMiller

Many Americans would agree with it. Iran is a big question mark. It is not Iraq.

It would have made more sense to attack Iran then it did to attack Iraq.

Obama wants to talk with Iran. Fine. I don't disagree with that, except what are they gonna talk about? Do we want our next President to simply pull all the troops out of Iraq immediately? If we do, don't look to Obama. He has already stated he would not do that. And he can't do it. It would do one thing for sure that everyone agrees on. It would endanger all the troops there right now. Sure this isn't his fault, it's the fault of the idiot in the White House right now, but don't be fooled onto thinking a drastic change is possible at this point immediately after any President takes office.

CosmicRocker

Yes she voted 'for' the war ( JD forgive me for the shorthand)
Obama has also said that if he were in the Senate he wouldn't be sure how he would have voted.
But since he has been there, their voting records are idenitcal.

She wants to start bringing troops home with in 60 days, but has not said at what pace, any new president would need to confer with the Joint Chiefs, and the NSA before setting a timetable.

A rapid reaction force doesn't have to be stationed in Iraq.
But this would be used for al_Queda, not for being in the middle of a cival war as we are now.

the NIE is an estimate, and not set in stone.
While it appears a weaponization program has ben put on hold, they do have the ability to enrich uranium with the centrifuges.
They have regional ballistic capability.
They could easily re-strat a weapons program.
They have the building blocks.

Recent Pentagon reports say the Kus force is active in Iran, and they are arming ALL sides ( factions).
Their weaponry has helped kill Americans.
They are far from a neutral party,
They seek instability, and Iranian influence.

Kyle-Lieberman does address this meddling as conductiong terrorist activities.

__________________

Traveling Wilburys (l to r)

Bob Dylan, Jeff Lynne, Tom Petty, George Harrison, Roy Orbison

Mithrall

I must say, you certainly have an appropriate name. First off, Ken Starr's investigation centered on Bill, not Hillary. There is alot of stuff about Hillary that did not come up. The Republicans are keeping thier powder dry against her, don't fool yourself any more than you already have. The Republicans are chomping at the bit to run against her and with good reason. Also, do you honestly believe that just because some of her dirt has already come up in the past that people aren't gonna dig it up again? People tend to have a short attention span and when this stuff is dug up again and shoved into thier faces they are gonna go "Oh yeah! now I remember". Who knows maybe they wont dredge up the old stuff, they might not have to. She does have a criminal trial upcoming in November.

babylonDon

Judging by their actions, and publicly expressed preferences, (operation chaos, etc.) the Right certainly feels as though they have something to attack Hillary with.

__________________
“The irony of the Information Age is that it has given new respectability to uninformed opinion."-John Lawton