Monday, November 05, 2007
|
|
Hillary's waffling brings G.O.P opening
|
|
Posted by:
Michael Medved at
6:12 PM
|
|
The recent debate of Democratic Presidential candidates featured a disastrous performance by front-runner Hillary Clinton. She gave conflicting, equivocal answers to every question she faced—waffling on Iraq, Iran, taxes, social security, drivers licenses for illegals, and even the prospect of opening her own papers at the National Archives.
To mitigate the damage, aides appealed for sympathy based on gender—portraying Hillary as one defenseless woman with ten hostile men, including NBC moderators, ganging up on her. This approach raises painful questions: if Hillary can’t stand up to Tim Russert, how is she supposed to stand up to Vladimir Putin—especially since Russert doesn’t have nuclear weapons behind him? If she buckles and doubletalks facing John Edwards, how will she confront Ahmadinejad or Hugo Chavez?
Her weakness gives Republicans a great opportunity if they hone their ability to answer tough questions directly and unequivocally—giving America the straight talk that they’re certainly not getting from Senator Clinton.
|
|
How about Michael Dukakis's bizarre answer to that rigged Bernard Shaw hypothetical question as to what he would do if his wife was raped and murdered?
How about Ronnie Rambo yelling "I'm paying for this microphone!"
And of course, how about Dennis Kucinich being asked if he saw any UFOs. What does that have to do with anything???????
Oh there is a double standard at work all right. Democrats are expected to solve every single domestic and international problem during their debates within a 30 second sound byte.
Republicans, by comparison, only have to show up and not sound totally retarded--works everytime so why give up on a good strategy now.
No wonder Bubba sneered that the debate was a trip into cutsey land.
|
|
If debate performance really counted for anything, President Gore would be finishing his second term or President Kerry would be on the campaign trail running for re-election. Dubya looked really pathetic against both of his opponents and won(???????) anyhow. I remember during his debates with Kerry all Dubya could do was croak out "IT'S SUCH HARD WORK."
Some more low points in presidential debate history--let's stroll down memory lane for the best of the worst:
Nixon sweating uncontrollably in his debates with Kennedy.
Gerald Ford asseting there was no Soviet domination of Eastern Europe during a debate with Jimmy Carter.
Reagan looking like a doddering fool against Mondale.
Bush 41's patronizing attitude toward Geraldine Ferraro (take notes, Hillary!!!!)
Bush 41 glancing down at his watch during his debate with Clinton.
Al Gore acting bored during a debate with Dubya.
See what a crock debates really are?????? |
|
|
Roy, at first I thought you were going to vehemently disagree with me. You said, "Pro-torture?, pro-war?, pro-corruption?, Anti-democracy?. Are you kidding or just retarded?" But then you spent the rest of your comment vehemently agreeing with me by saying the conservatives were pro-torture, pro-war, pro-corruption, and anti-democracy. With enemies like you I don't need friends. I think you conservatives are just a bunch of fat rich white guys who like to intimidate everybody else with your big SUVs and monster trucks. |
|
US Citizen -
"The conservatives seem to be not very interested in the Republican presidential candidates as long as they toe the Cheney/Craig/Bush/Foley/Gonzales/Rumsfeld pro-torture, pro-war, pro-corruption, anti-democracy line, but conservatives get completely hysterical when they think about Hillary Clinton."
Pro-torture?, pro-war?, pro-corruption?, Anti-democracy?. Are you kidding or just retarded? So if someone has a dirty bomb and they are going to use it in your neighborhood you don't want to know where it is? You think that you can share a coffee and smoke, and they'll just tell you where to find it. Pro-War? How many resolutions did you want us to get from the Useless Nations? Sadam brought all this on himself, if he had stuck to his word we wouldn't be there. The President just wasn't willing to risk a couple thousand more American lives to see if Sadam was bluffing or not. Don't forget your Presidential hopeful was supposedly duped by the stupidest President ever, according to the liberal vermin such as your self. So if she was outwitted by a half wit what does that make her? Pro-Corruption? Hello Nancy "Starkist Tuna" Pelosi.... William Jefferson Democrat Louisiana & his $90,000 refrigerator. You seem to have a short narrow memory. Anti-Democracy? Hello homeless voters in Wisconsin being driven to the polls and offered smokes and booze if they voted a straight democratic ballot.... So what am I missing. Oh by the way, there is this current matter of cash bundling from a Chinese guy, and some other Chinese guys giving Hillary an awful lot of money. Hmmmm you forgot about that. You know a family in San Fransicko that doesn't make more than $40,000 in one year and yet they contributed $45,000 to her campaign. Interesting. What were you saying about corruption? Plus government health care. Not for me thanks....
|
|
|
I say when the general election debates start, Hillary will be slaughtered. |
|
|
The conservatives seem to be not very interested in the Republican presidential candidates as long as they toe the Cheney/Craig/Bush/Foley/Gonzales/Rumsfeld pro-torture, pro-war, pro-corruption, anti-democracy line, but conservatives get completely hysterical when they think about Hillary Clinton. That seems to indicate that she could be a really good President, not like what we've had for the last seven years. |
|
|
Don't think, for one second, that Hillary will debate any republican unless she has TOTAL control of the debate. The Clintons are famous for not doing anything outside of a controlled situation. You will NEVER get an interview unless you give them full control of all questions asked and an agreement to not deviate from the script. She knows these rediculous demo-debates mean nothing and few voters are watching. When it gets serious? No way she shows to any debate she does not fully control. She knows the media will gloss over the whole nasty mess for her and her usefull idiot supporters will fall right in line. Give her a full script of debate questions to study on the ability to veto anay of the questions she doesn't want to answer, you'll have your "debate." Don't think, for another second, the media won't play along like good little lap-uppies. |
|
King Liberal writes: "if her performance was so bad then why did her polling umbers go up? "
They didn't go up. The latest CNN poll shows a drop.
But the polls aren't the issue. What is the issue is that Hillary gave the GOP an opportunity to use against her in the general election campaign. She's clearly vulnerable on the immigration issue, and the GOP can pin her on it at the debates and elsewhere.
She also is thin-skinned. If the GOP can needle her enough, they might just get her to lose her temper in public.
|
|
the dimocrat nomination. Babakazama is the Howard Dean of 2008....photogenic, as provocative as a vapid man can be and the Son-of-a-Millworker is running for VP.
The VP will probably be someone totally uninvolved in the dimocrat primaries, someone who could be perceived by dimocrat shysters to be 'gun-friendly,' with a military service. As Wesley Clark has already spent a fair amount of time with his nose up Hillary Rod'em's bloated can, he will be a good choice for her.
The Broom Pilot in Chief does not have to forge alliances with any other dimocrats...they will all line up behind her, no matter their flavor of dimocrat.
Hillary Rod'em Rod'em has been coddled for a long time by the MSM, and as has already been pointed out here, does not think nor speak well on her feet. With a cooperative press, she has had very few unscripted moments, hence the rude surprise at Russert's persistence. |
|
|
Good advice. We should not show all of our cards...yet. |
|
Leave her alone or they will nominate someone that enough useful idiots will vote for and if the republicans are stupid enough to nominate Rudy, then the Dem wins in a landslide.
If Fred is not ready to lead, then nominate Mitt or better yet, Duncan, and beat the stuffing out of Hillary in the general election, but for now, lay off! It is self defeating, not that the republicans don't have a track record of being self defeating. |
|
|
Hillary is without question the rear end of the most crooked couple in the history of American politics. Yet the uninformed or unwilling to be informed still attempt to convince, she is worth considering for the leadership of the free world. Why? What can anyone hope to gain from more Socialism, more lies and obfuscation, higher taxes, more bastardization of the Constitution and illegal activities involving foreign governments. I just don't get it, do the Democrats sincerely believe she is the best they have to offer? Can a whole party be at this level of political denial? |
|
|
Hillary will always need to follow the script provided by her handlers. In her whole life, she has had everything handed to her. She has never been anything more than a woman with a trophy husband - and what a trophy, God help us all... |
|
"Fascists Don't Waffle," huh? you need to go back to the library and read what Mr Hitler wrote. for him what he said publicly had no bearing on the truth. It was intended only to gain the support of the masses until he obtained power to do what he wanted.
I would advise you not to be calling names unless you know what the names are about. If the conservatives were fascists as you claim you would be having difficulty writing with your broken hands from your concentration camp bunk. |
|
I'm very curious how that will play out for Hillary. I certainly don't want her to win, in fact, I can't imagine wanting anything more than her to lose in 2008.
But the fact is, after her bad performance, you must know the Hillary will do her upmost to be 100% in control of next debate venue. I wouldn't put it past her that she's released her Private Eye Posse and digging up dirt on every candidate, including the persons conducting the next questions. She will have her ammo and she'll show her guns before the debate cameras roll.
You might find the next debate that Hillary prevails. She's power hungry, she wants this, and she will do whatever dirty trick she has to win.
Just my humble opinion.
|
|
Not everyone who dissagrees with you is a Fascist or Nazi. Demonization is the last weapon in the arsenal of the intellectually defeated.
Simply call the other guy a vile name, then delcare yourself the winner of the argument.
For the record, you might want to read up on your history. Abe Lincoln and FDR wiped their feet on the constitution. Bush does not hold a candle to those men when it comes to constitutional, "violations" . |
|
A gaff is when you accidently say something stupid, once. When you repeat the nonsensical answer several times, you can no longer hide behind the, "oops I goofed" defense. Yes, many politicians have misspoken when answering certain questions. I do not hold Hillary to any higher standard than any other politician.
That said, when you continue to make the same "gaff" over and over, it soon becomes evident that it isnt a gaff at all.
You may not like to hear this, but Edwards And Obama made Hillary look foolish. As a conservative Republican, I think I would prefer Hillary to Obama, since she might actually be more conservative on some issues. That said, I dont think she has the juice to beat him. He is far more polished, and a much better speaker. |
|
|
That's one thing about fascists - they don't waffle. All the leading Republican candidates are fascists, especially Rudy. They are all too sure of how to destroy the delicate democracy of the United States. After the George W. / Cheney years, democracy in the United States is in a very sick, fragile condition. |
|
Another excuse that was made for her was that it was late in the debate and she was "worn down" by that time.
Great..that's who we need to lead the country in a world where people want to kill us all...a President who gets "worn down" after a couple of hours. |
|
|
so the candidate "gaffed" on her answer. i don't see where that's stopped anybody from winning the white house, just because they "gaffed" on a statement. does george bush come to mind. many misstatements will be made before this campaign is over. the only thing i'm am concerned about are the issues and what is happening to our economy. "that is the middle class" economy. everything seems to be going well for the upper crusts. give us a break. we need inspiration, not gotch all the time. when is the last time we were inspired by a president? the 1980's and the 1990's? so sometimes the most seasoned of spokesperson may "flub- up" does that means that it is the end of the world. may the best person make it to the white house whom ever it may be. |
|
|
But, she does not have the temperment for a general election debate.(And Bill Knows this better than anyone.)........Like a boxer that turns angry in a fight to only lose it, her lack of poise will destroy her. A shrewd debater will intentinaly make her angry!......After living in the whitehouse for 8 years, she resents being "re-interviewed". |
|
|
Not just any Republican will be able to take advantage of Mrs. Clinton's support for illegal aliens. Rudy is in favor of regularization also. |
|
brilliant... HELLary is nothing more than an "intern" and that also needs to be driven home.
|
|
every question she faced—waffling on:
** Iraq
** Iran
** taxes
** social security
** drivers licenses for illegals
** prospect of opening her own papers at the National Archives.
Yup, that about covers almost everything!!!
And then followed up with the "gender card" and the "pile on" thing.
Now, if the Republicans don't pick up on this and run with it, they're wimpier that even I thought, and each and every one of them should be elected out of office, and maybe tarred and feathered just before they're run out of DC.
|
|
I hope Romney develops a theme of "no interns (with its double meaning if Bill is the First Man) in the White House."
Aside from his comment being descriptive, it does cause us a shudder to think that an inexperienced person such as Sen. Clinton might be the leader of the Free World - with no apprenticeship possible once she is elected. What a roller coaster ride that will be for her administration and the entire country. How would she immediately inspire trust and confidence? Her basic strength seems to be to divide and conquer, leaving a trail of former friends and associates writing books about her real character. Not a pretty picture for 2008.
So, let's not elect her!!! |
|
|
|