Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-42 next last
To: Leapfrog
MONIKA MADE HER PRACTICE.
2 posted on
11/03/2004 12:31:00 PM PST by
Henchman
(<Font color="blue"><B>Now let Kerry benefit the country. What is his PLAN?</b></font>)
To: Leapfrog
Hillary can't win. She could have possibly won in a pre-9/11 climate, but now, with a WOT that will last for years, even the Dims felt compelled to put a fraudulent 'war hero' at the top of their ticket.
3 posted on
11/03/2004 12:31:30 PM PST by
Carling
(What happened to Sandy Burglar's Docs?)
To: Leapfrog
Uh, could you maybe move the camera back a few 100 yards next time. Blech!
4 posted on
11/03/2004 12:31:31 PM PST by
isthisnickcool
(Only dummies play poker with George W. Bush.)
To: Leapfrog
But Hillary Clinton (news - web sites) is the most quoted name for the next contender.Make our day.
5 posted on
11/03/2004 12:31:49 PM PST by
mewzilla
To: Leapfrog
KERRY DEFEATED, DASSHOLE DEFEATED, CONGRESS GAINS...WHOO HOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
6 posted on
11/03/2004 12:31:53 PM PST by
Mr. K
To: Leapfrog
They might have a better chance with Roger than Hillary.
7 posted on
11/03/2004 12:32:15 PM PST by
Brilliant
To: Leapfrog
Eeeeyuch... it's Hitlery !!!
8 posted on
11/03/2004 12:32:17 PM PST by
GeekDejure
( LOL = Liberals Obey Lucifer !!!)
To: Leapfrog
In light of how disastrous the last 12 years have been for just about everyone in the Democrat Party
except Bill Clinton, why the hell would the Democrats be out there today looking for another Bill Clinton? The political landscape is littered with the corpses of all those people and institutions who have paid a steep price for having anything to do with him -- including the U.S. Congress, various state legislatures and governors' offices, Al Gore, Gray Davis, Mario Cuomo, John Kerry, Erskine Bowles, etc.
I'm usually loathe to give advice to Democrats, but let's be blunt here -- the dumbest thing that party ever did was hitch its wagon to a jack@ss from Arkansas who was elected to the White House with 43% of the popular vote.
11 posted on
11/03/2004 12:34:53 PM PST by
Alberta's Child
(I made enough money to buy Miami -- but I pissed it away on the Alternative Minimum Tax.)
To: Leapfrog
Clinton would have never won with Perot (spelling?). Dole was a very weak candidate in the 2nd election (old style republican--not a Reagan type republican that could have won).
12 posted on
11/03/2004 12:35:02 PM PST by
Hendrix
To: Leapfrog
By following the Clintons, the DemonRats will continue their descent into political Hell. They seem to learn nothing from their mistakes. Stupid is, as stupid does.
15 posted on
11/03/2004 12:36:49 PM PST by
Free ThinkerNY
((((Hitlery: The Wicked Witch of the Northeast))))
To: Leapfrog
Somebody tell the Dems that John Kerry with his mannequin personality got more votes than Clinton had ever hoped to get in either of his wins, and in 96 running against a retired guy. OTOH maybe I won't tell them.
To: Leapfrog
To democrats: If you think the republicans got the vote out this election, try running hillary in 2008. She is a lightening rod and is despised by most of the electorate.
To: Leapfrog
University of Virginia political scientist Larry Sabato believes there are several reasons why Kerry lost Tuesday's vote. "One, he is too liberal, well to the left of the American mainstream on the critical social and cultural issues such as abortion, gay rights and gun control." More important for Sabato was personality. "John Kerry is no Bill Clinton. There is very little warmth there, and people didn't warm to him. A moderate Democratic candidate with personal warmth would have defeated George W. Bush easily." So, Hillary would be less liberal, favor ristrictions on abortion and gay marriage, and oppose gun control? So, Hillary is "a moderate Democratic candidate with personal warmth?" She is everything Kerry was, only without the sincerity. Trust me, America will not go for this woman.
19 posted on
11/03/2004 12:38:02 PM PST by
kezekiel
To: Leapfrog
"John Kerry is no Bill Clinton. There is very little warmth there, and people didn't warm to him. A moderate Democratic candidate with personal warmth would have defeated George W. Bush easily."Hillary's warm -- compared to, say, Mr. Freeze (Batman nemesis).
To: Leapfrog
2008 will be Hitlery's try for the WH and perhaps Puce Pelosi. If that occurs, I bet Liddy Dole will try in 2008 too.
21 posted on
11/03/2004 12:39:26 PM PST by
lilylangtree
(Veni, Vidi, Vici)
To: Leapfrog
One Democrat that was happy about yesterday. It's not too early to start thinking about 2008-you know her shrillness is.
22 posted on
11/03/2004 12:40:02 PM PST by
Spok
To: Leapfrog
The Beast of the East: "Gainin' Weight for 2008!"
23 posted on
11/03/2004 12:42:34 PM PST by
quark
To: Leapfrog
If the Democrats "need only nominate a moderate candidate with warmth" then why in the world would they look to Hitlery in 2008? She never even met either concept.
24 posted on
11/03/2004 12:42:36 PM PST by
Malleus Dei
("Communists are just Democrats with less patience.")
To: Leapfrog
I don't know about presidental material, but I can see her qualification as the dem's VP candidate growing on her lip.
25 posted on
11/03/2004 12:42:50 PM PST by
Quilla
To: Leapfrog
New Clinton
Let's see never got 50% of the vote despite being an incumbent with no war and the MSM kisssin his butt and covering for his scandals
Cost the dems the house and senate in 94
All the candidates he campaigns for loses
Yeah they need a new Clinton
26 posted on
11/03/2004 12:43:27 PM PST by
uncbob
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-42 next last
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson