Hillary in Free Fall......a week later after driver's license fiasco

http://www.slate.com/id/2177540/#flailing

Yet another take on Hillary's failure to answer a very simple question. (Which Sen. Dodd answered directly). Wow, if this has damaged her this badly among Dems, you can imagine the reaction among the general electorate!!

This is about the third time one of Obama's supporters have posted this trash..and from the rag of all rags the Washington Post's SLATE.

Obama is not her evil overlord.

award, and a first class asshole.

he certainly doesn't seem to like Hillary much...

Fact is, she's pretty well indicated that she supports giving drivers licenses to illegal aliens.

And that's fine. I disagree with it, but plenty of others think it's a fine idea.

If that was the only issue, I wouldn't vote for Hillary. But obviously you have to look at the complete package.

for illegal aliens since they would have to show proof of insurance in order to get that permit...

On the other hand, why should I be required to prove who I am via my SS# when the illegals don't...

I am so contorted on this issue...

I want this country to be fair with immigration policy as it is not at this moment...

But the unabated traffic from one country to another is unprecedented and we have to do something if only because of the chance of disease and, let's be honest, terrorists getting into this country so easily...

and a poll shown on CNN tonight shows that over 70% of Americans are opposed to giving drivers' licenses to illegal aliens.

BTW, Napolitano said that she wished Hillary had said something about what she would do about immigration if she were President including money for enforcement, a combination of fence and electronic surveillance, overall immigration reform, etc.

She stumbled a bit but came on strong at the end...

She could be a force to reckon with down the road...

I am sure that immigration and border security will be a hot topic.

:eyes:

Pretty strong claim.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com

She's also significantly down in the latest New Hampshire poll.

Rasmussen takes a poll every day and tabulates a three day running score. Rasmussen scores bounce around. What Rasmussen did in this instance was take the highest day in months, maybe forever, and use that as a comparison point.

If Hillary's 39% current score is to be compared to judge the effects of her debate performance, the comparison should be to the day before or day of the debate. The day before Hillary scored 44%. The day of the debate Hillary scored 42%. So if those are good numbers she's down three to five points.

NBC/WSJ just came out with a poll that shows no drop at all in Hillary's support since September. In fact, she's up a hair.

Hyperbole is not a monopoly of Camp Hillary.

She’s a good girl,loves her mamma, loves je -sus, and america too.
She’s a good girl, crazy ‘bout elvis, loves horses, and her boyfriend too......

And all the bad boys are standin' in the shadows, and the good girls
Are home with broken hearts."


Tom Petty - Free Falling Lyrics

she`s still the front runner and less she breaks her legs she`s going to win

I just scrolled through and saw a nasty attack on Edwards, too.

Who the hell is Mickey Kaus? :shrug: (Nevermind, I don't really care!)

in here that somehow think they are going to influence us by their attacks....Hell, they must stay up late each night and come up with this chit they spew on here. I have for the last several months read most of the hate that is spewed from those that support edwards or obama and I have seen little from the HRC supporters.

Someone needs to do research before they come in here and spew stats that are so off the mark they sometimes make me laugh and other times I feel sad that we have folks that hate one of our candidates. I think Bill Clinton said it best:

Clinton said the hand-raising exercise made a “cartoon” out of a complex issue and created the kind of footage Republicans could use in the general election to create an attack ad against the Democratic nominee — similar to the one Republicans made in the last election that claimed Democrat John Kerry, despite his service in Vietnam, was less patriotic than Republican George Bush, who did not serve in Vietnam.

So Clinton never spoke ill of his wife’s rivals, he said, and the Las Vegas Journal-Review’s account of his speech backs him up. And that means Obama’s comment Tuesday that he was “stunned” at Bill Clinton’s alleged criticism and Sen. Chris Dodd’s comment Tuesday calling Bill Clinton’s alleged criticism “outrageous,” were all based on something Clinton never said.

“I want us to keep our party together,” Clinton said. “I want us to win in November.”


I do thank you
Ben David

The Kerry approach is to let things fester too long before responding decisively. The Clinton approach is to immediately crush any annoyance like it's a poisonous bug.

The latter approach works rather well when someone goes for your carotid, but if it's in response to something that's not inherently devastating, it just seems like an obsessive need to dominate and destroy. It's like the tactic of threatening certain periodicals and journals with a denial of access if the mandated line isn't toed: it comes across as imperious and cold.

People focus on the twinkly and relaxed Bill Clinton image, but they either haven't seen the harsh side or somehow gloss it over. Thus, it's doubly dangerous when seen because the common (and fairly accurate) image of him is jovial and engaging; to see the other side in times of strife can be quite rattling. One begins to question the underlying evaluation.

You can't fight everything like a raging bar room brawler: it reeks of weakness and it's not appropriate for an applicant to a job that can be described as having a certain statesmanlike serenity about it.

A person who can brook no critique or admit any tactical mistake will annoy most people. We focus so much on the anti-intellectualism of America, and it's very real, but there's an equally important anti-aristocratic streak, too, and being one of the guys or gals is important. Inability to admit stumbles is bad enough, but to obsess makes it worse.

Senator Clinton is better when she just says "it wasn't my best night" and leaves it at that. Those are the instincts she should listen to more often.

I don't want her to be the nominee, and although much of that desire is from a dislike of certain facets of her character, I don't want it to boil down to that; I'd like her to be defeated on her policies and keep it on a more ideological plane.

watch this space.
:hide:

I think that is a legitimate question that no one has asked directly. She only says she "supports Spitzers intentions" kinda similar to supporting Bush's "Iraq War intentions" but not the actual plan.

I think New Yorkers deserve to know which side their Senator is on. Does she agree with Spitzer's plan or does she disagree with his plan. Immigration reform is not happening under Bush, so she can't brush off this question toward future hypothetical reforms.

The Spitzer plan is the Present-day, and it deserves a present-day answer.

Sorry, but this is not a "very simple question".

The Hill-bashers are upset that Hillary would not give a one-syllable yes-or-no answer (to which she would be held for all time) to a complex question with many aspects and variables. We currently have a "president" who has no problem instantly reducing the world's complexity to black and white, with numerous tragic results. Is this now to be the standard for all future presidents?

Hillary's refusal to be forced into a simplistic response speaks well for her political maturity and her suitability for the presidency.