another worthless post from a worthless republican. G

Hillary sure does like waffles!! As much as Bill did!!

lol...to bad so sad for Hitlary!

Too bad she will get the nomination so we can MOVE ON!!!!

I hope Move on is right...she will be alot easier to beat than obama.

Get off of poor Hillary ass! Republicans hate her cause they're stupid. They demonize her and yet they think Bush is a good man!

Wow Wayne...thanks for such an elaborate comment stupid ass!

Kiss my ass, Jason-- there's another elaborate statement- and I'll kiss your ass when you move your nose.

The problem with Hillary is that she doesn't seem to have a position on any issue. She plays to whatever issue is the issue du'jour. She knows she can't win without the moderate, middle of the road, and undecided voters so she plays to those voters, but then the left wing liberals demonize her. When that happens, she then has to play to the left wing and turns off the moderate, middle of the road, and undecided voters. She needs to stick by her positions come hell or high water. That's Hillary's problem. Her shady dealings in her past don't help either.

Her makeover as a softer, kinder, gentler Hillary are so phony because she hasn't demonstrated any of that in the past and everyone knows what a cold hearted, mean B, she really is.

Bill Clinton outdid himself again this week when he referred to his wife, Hillary Rodham Clinton, as a "world class genius" who has made the lives of so many people better. It seems the Clinton camp is going for the shotgun approach since recent attacks on Barack Obama seem to be having a negative effect on Hillary's ratings. In addition to Bill's blustering, Hillary is now engaged in what many are referring to as her "charm offensive". Have you noticed in recent speaking engagements that her voice is softer and her decibles lowered? Attempting to reverse two decades of establishing her image as one of cold, ruthless ambition, she is now smiling and laughing (cackling actually) and generally trying to portray an image of warmth.

So which is it? Is she the second coming of Albert Einstein or the second coming of Mary Poppins? Is she the tough cookie who can stand up to and take the measure of Mehmoud Ahmadinejad, Kim Jung Il, Vladimir Putin and Osama bin Laden? Or is she the poor defenseless female who is being ganged up on by her male Democratic rivals, evil Republicans and the Media? Well, she did tell the Daily Kos convention several weeks ago that she had stood up to Bill O'Reilly. That should be worth some points in somebody's eyes. She then followed it up by playing the victim card when people jumped on her for her disastrous answer to the drivers licenses for illegal aliens question at the Philadelphia debate. Then, after her spokespeople starting floating stories about Obama scheming his presidential bid when he was in kindergarten, questioning whether he was a closet Muslim and beginning his presidential campaign on his frst day in the Senate (in stark contrast to Hillary and all her years of "experience") with negative results, now it's Mrs Nice Guy, er Lady.

Undoubtedly, her advisors believe that there are enough dummies out there who will think, "Gee, she's not so bad after all!", that this can change the public perception of her. I, for one, believe that Mrs Clinton's image is well established and not subject to change. After all, she has worked very hard all these years to show the country who she is. There are few things harder to undo than a "bad jacket", (bad reputation) as we used to say in law enforcement. Are there really many folks out there who don't have an opinion on Hillary Rodham Clinton? If anything, it seems that she is losing support from those on the left who see her as too establishment and not prepared to make the drastic changes they want to see. Of course, many of Hillary's supporters are confident that she is only playing a game to win over moderates and undecideds. Once she is in office, they say, she will do all the "right things". I think they are correct.

It seems that Mrs Clinton is walking down the same trail that Al Gore and John Kerry walked when they were running (re-inventing themselves). I can't see it working. Can it actually be that even Democrats are getting sick of her and all her phoniness?

And more thing: If anyone reading this thinks that Hillary has changed your life in any way, I sure would like to hear from you.

gary fouse
fousesquawk

Very good observation on Hillary and how she is trying to reinvent herself as softer, kinder, and gentler. It's too bad that the folks she is trying to play to don't know the real Hillary. She is such a phony.

Hard to say how she will fare in the upcoming primaries. I don't think she is as popular as the polls, the media, and her own campaign saboteurs would have us to believe. She might have a strong Democratic base in New York, but what about in the rest of the U.S.?

The Democratic race is basically between Obama and Clinton. All the others are just fodder and distractions who don't really have a chance. They do make it interesting though.

@ Wayne

Dude, I would appreciate that if you leave comments on the blog; to please add value to the discussion. It's cool if you disagree with me but at least tell us why. You too Jason....

@ Gary

Nice analysis..."world class genius"...LMAO

@ acornct_dad

Actually, I think that most people do see right through her "fakeness". If they can't, I would question their ability to vote coherently.

Hell, half the comments on any blog are like mine, but since you didn't put me down I will tell you some of the reasons I do not like Bush. When he was governor of Texas he was a do nothing holder of an outpost state for republican conservatives. He basically scarfed up the pay and held the position for the republicans. He wholeheartedly backed the sentancing of people to 25 years to life for having small amounts of cocaine even though he had abused cocaine himself in college. He also got a cushy deal with wealthy republicans who lent him $100,000 to buy in to the Texas Rangers baseball team knowing they were going to make a killing off taxpayers and off selling the club. I think this was done because his backers didn't want a poor, failed businessman in their midst so they set him up. He made $16,000,000 off that borrowed money using insider knowledge and his cronies help. They were paving the way for him- something I'm sure has been done for him all his life. In his youth he was in the national guard instead of Vietnam- and it's documented that his Dad pulled every string in the book to keep him there. He spent the time missing roll call, partying, drinking and doing drugs. I also think he went to an Ivy League school without being terribly bright- which rich people can get by with cause of their lineage and name. In other words he benefitted from every break a rich spoiled child of a wealthy and important person can be given. But the worst thing about him is that he does none of his own thinking. He's a conservative puppet. I don't think his heart has ever shed even a small tear over the plight or problems of anyone not in his social class. I'm sure he bleeds copiously over the suffering of the very rich- their heartrending misery over having to pay taxes and obey regulations and laws that get in the way of them having a bigger profit margin- that's what they really hate about Big Government- it's big enough to make them tow the line too. They hate something that can tell them no and can dominate them to have to play along with ideas like "the common good". If it's any consolation I hate the far left too.

@ Wayne

I am not a big Bush fan either and I am very critical about some of the decisions he has made while in office. But, you just defined just about every politician alive today - Republican and Democrat.

And what does you not liking Bush have to do with the fact that just about every one else hates Hillary?

Well, not just about everyone else hates Hillary. About every conservative hates Hillary. She's certainly no dafter or air-headed than what's been elected under the conservative banner. She might even be less.

SOMETHING FISHY ABOUT HILLARY?
I saw Hillary Clinton’s Christmas ad on television the other night. She was wrapping packages and identifying many of the gifts she is promising Americans, if they would simply vote for her. The wrappings were in gold, which means gold from the government treasury, of course. It reminded me of the old adage, “If you give a man a fish you feed him for the day.� Hillary will give away things people need that others, who already have them, will pay for, less the commissions needed to pay for the further growth of bureaucracy to distribute those gifts. In other words, we will need millions of minor Santa Claus civil servant post office types handing out the fish. Of course, we can all see a time when there are no more fish to catch, as they will be harvested faster than they can grow back.

The rest of that adage said, “If you teach a man to fish, you feed him for life.� That’s not what the Democrats want to do. The result of that are people who will be independent of the Santa Claus brigades from Washington. Independent people spell Republican to them, and they cannot tolerate it. Individual freedom is a threat to the power the democrats want to gather to themselves. Individual freedom means individual and family prosperity, followed by prosperity for communities closest to the individual. This would be an outright challenge to the power they work so hard to gain, so their elite can sit atop Mount Olympus like the gods they see themselves, ruling what was once the richest nation in the world. Bill can be Nero. Hillary can be Caligula. He can play his saxophone while the nation dries up. She can gather around her applauding sycophants to reassure her of her intelligence and wisdom.

As to the fish, they will have to hide from the broad nets of our government. They will have to swim to other shores to avoid the Santa Claus brigades as they sweep the oceans for every minnow as Hillary’s gifts to the Democrats who voted for her. Of course, I am speaking of the wealth produced so well by a free people, which is why America has been the target of world envy since it stood apart from it in freedom. The individual who thinks out of the bubble and lives out of the box, who creates, invents, produces and distributes products, services and ideas that change things for the better, and is rewarded for it, is caught up, along with his property, in the Santa nets for redistribution. There will be no new businesses to hire new people and grow toward prosperity. Hillary’s great Christmas party in 2008 will bring about a new America, not dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal, but to the proposition of equality of outcome. This is her greatest promise, her best gift to us. It may only smell fishy while there are fish to catch.

You're most all of you demonizing Hillary, but you didn't even begin to demonize your own until he's almost out of office. His damage is mostly done I hope. Everybody has a tendency to hate one candidate and ignore glaring facts about the candidate they like. Like said above, a line-up of facts and inconsistencies could and would indict every candidate- they're all politicians and they've all played the political game to the point of being basically third-rate cheats and liars, and none of them tell who really owns them when they're running for office. And they're all owned by someone or something-from Ron Paul to Ronald Reagan to my favorite, Bill Clinton. It's usually the biggest industry in their state.

Those who profess allegiance to the founding principles of America are always fair game for those who want America to be like the rest of the world, where the few rule the many. Liberals believe there are two classes, those who rule and the many who are too stupid to rule their own lives. I can appreciate your belief in the latter and a need to attack those like Reagan who believe we should all have the right to stand on our own two feet, or decide to kneel at another's.

Clay - good insight. Thank you for sharing.

Ucon

Conservatives believe in the few ruling the many too- they just want to be the few. Conservatives think the liberals rule them or want to when in their perfect world it would be them doing all the ruling. As for the above being a good point, it is fantasy and opinion- not a good point. You didn't state a fact, you stated a simple biased opinion- which is what you criticise me for doing. As for professing allegiances to the founding principles of America there was no single founding principle for you or anyone else to profess allegiance to. There were a lot of principles and a lot of disagreement even then as to which principles should be adhered to, and some of the principles supposedly held dear were never practised ethically or in any way honestly in practical politics or commerce or day-to-day life. In other words then as today people were hypocrites.

I'm obviously not a Hillary fan by any stretch, but I happen to believe she was being genuine. I do believe the leadership game is much more different and difficult for women than men.

She isn't the worst people could do. She'd probably make a good president. The nation tends to become more prosperous under liberal presidents than under conservative.

I am struck by the fact that most liberals are so consumed by domestic prosperity issues when the real number 1 issue is the threat of Islamic terrorism. Folks, if we don't prevail over the Islamic terrorists, all these other concerns you have like health care, education, income redistribution et all won't matter one iota.

Get your heards out of the sand!

@ Gary

I couldn't have said it better! The fact is that most people just don't understand the real threat. They are too busy watching American Idol, Oprah and the View. That's their perception of the world.

fouse, you may be right that the Islamic world is a serious threat. Even I am not for willy-nilly pulling the troops home, but that might be exactly the right thing to do. Paranoia is not a good basis for foreign policy. But I'm not sure myself that these wars don't serve some good in the long run. Look at Vietnam- We lost after great loss of life and huge outlay of wealth/funds and it became a prosperous and peaceful communist state ( so far it's been anyway). But maybe our expenditures contributed to the eventual bankrupting of the Soviet Union. Maybe good came from it? Can we outspend the Islamics seems to be the real task. Sure we can but will that make us clearcut winners in the end? Probably not, and i wonder how many of the people who've lost their lives over there would have been willing to make the trade?

Don't forget that after we pulled out of Viet nam, about 3 million people lost their lives. Don't forget all those refugees.

This Islamic terror thing will be with us probably for the rest of our lives, and bringing all the troops home won't change that.

If Islamic terror is probably going to be with us the rest of our lives and bringing the troops home wont change that then the reverse is that leaving the troops there won't stop Islamic terror in our life times either. Might as well do the thing that saves American soldiers lives and saves many, many billions of dollars we're borrowing from China. I did think of the lives lost in Vietnam after we left and the refugees, but it could be easily argued that had we not interfered in their politics and stood in the way of what turned out to be inevitable (the reunification of Vietnam under communist rule) maybe there wouldn't have been such goings on? Who knows. I'm not for pulling out of Iraq because we're already over there- the deed is done. But I wouldn't be surprised to find that pulling out quickly is exactly the correct thing to do. We've made them spend their money. We've alerted them to the brutal fact that there's powerful opposition to them.

Maybe true? May Obama Bin Laden? Should be vetted.

Who Is Barack Obama?

Probable U. S. presidential candidate, Barack Hussein
Obama was born in Honolulu , Hawaii , to Barack Hussein Obama, Sr.,
a black MUSLIM from Nyangoma-Kogel , Kenya and Ann Dunham, a white
ATHIEST from Wichita , Kansas ..

Obama's parents met at the University of Hawaii . When
Obama was two years old, his parents divorced. His father returned
to Kenya . His mother then married Lolo Soetoro, a RADICAL Muslim from
Indonesia.? When Obama was! 6 years old, the family relocated to
Indonesia . Obama attended a MUSLIM school in Jakarta . He also
spent two years in a Catholic school.
Obama takes great care to conceal the fact that he is a
Muslim. He is quick to point out that, "He was once a Muslim, but
that he also attended Catholic school."
Obama's political handlers are attempting to make it appear that?
Obama's introduction to Islam came via his father, and that this
influence was temporary at best. In reality, the senior Obama
returned to Kenya soon after the divorce, and never again had any
direct influence over his son's education.

Lolo Soetoro, the second husband of Obama's mother, Ann
Dunham, introduced his stepson to Islam. Obama was enrolled in a
Wahabi school in Jakarta.

Wahabism is the RADICAL teaching that is followed by the
Muslim terrorists who are now waging Jihad against the western
world. Since it is politically expedient to be a CHRISTIAN when seeking
major public office in the United States , Barack Hussein Obama has
joined the United Church of Christ in an attempt to downplay his Muslim
background. ALSO, keep in mind that when he was sworn into office he
DID NOT use the Holy Bible, but instead the Koran.

Let us all remain alert concerning Obama's expected
presidential candidacy.

The Muslims have said they plan on destroying the US
from the inside out, what better way to start than at the highest
level - through the President of the United States , one of their own!!!!

Would you want this man leading our country?...... NOT ME!!!

People should be very careful when they start saying "maybe true".Absolutely anything may be true. But then again absolutely anything may not be true. Step back from "maybe true". Consider it only a possibility. Don't let it take your mind. Think about it sometimes but don't let it become an obsession. You may begin to see odds against it or at least reasons why it won't come to be true. There are a lot of forces in this country that stand in the way of the very worst things being true. Thank God for their efforts. Paranoia and fear only petrify the mind making it useless.

Wayne,

Re Viet Nam- the US military did not lose Viet nam-They won virtually every battle they fought. We lost it at home.

Re Iraq: You have one thing right. We are there. Why not win? By that I mean leave behind a stable Iraq that can be an ally and defend itself from the crazies. If we leave, we give a huge victory to Al-Qaida, Iraq becomes a base for terror and/or a satellite for Iran. I would rather see Iraq as being comparible to Jordan or even Egypt.

The question is, Wayne, where do you want to fight the terrorists? On our soil or theirs?

Thank God we didn't have this defeatist mentality in WW2.

Man, I'm not a defeatist- I'm a win-ist. Most of the terrorists in the 9-11 attacks were from Saudi Arabia- I think 16 out of 20? Saudi Arabia is a goodly distance from Iraq. We may be on the wrong soil. In fact Osama ben Laden (spell? I don't know) is also from Saudi Arabia. His vast wealth also comes from Saudi Arabia. If 16 of the terrorists had been from Iraq the president wouldn't have had to claim there were weapons of mass destruction there to get his war launched and no one would be calling him a liar today. So what is it? We couldn't invade Saudi Arabia but we could invade Iraq? Why couldn't we invade Saudi Arabia? But I do agree with you that since the war has been advanced to this point maybe we should stay there until Iraq is totally pacified, democratic and stable. Otherwise we've just wasted all the money and American lives already spent there. And hopefully not too many more lives will be lost getting to that peaceful and successful point.

You make good points about Saudi Arabia, but it is similar to Pakistan, both governments have their flaws and have made their compromises, but both are threatened by Islamism. Obviously, we are playing a delicate diplomatic game to help the "good guys" win in both countries.

The truth is that if the radicals take over all the Muslim countries, then we will be fighting the whole Muslim world- in our self defense.

I'm glad you realize that if we leave Iraq now, all the Americans who died there will have died in vain.-Just like the Americans who died in Viet Nam-died in vain.

I don't know what I would have thought about Vietnam if I'd been my age now then. I was just a kid through most of it. I do remember though that I wasn't a big follower of the anti-war protesters. I watched it all but I didn't have any formed opinions. I was neither for or against the war in that I felt so removed from it that it was like "adult stuff that had little to do with me." But I'm from Texas and I was so proud of LBJ being president that if he said the war was necessary then it was necessary. I trusted him. I would have never joined any protest marches shouting "Hey, hey, LBJ- how many kids did you kill today?" Even as a kid I knew that wasn't really fair cause I knew he hated the fact american boys were getting killed. I believed him a good man. I still do. One of the best we've had, but I'm a little odd because I also believe Nixon was one of the best. Sorry we didn't get Vietnam won but maybe we can get Iraq won.