35 years of change?

[actsnoblemartin]

I agree, she is not an honest person

rose law firm cough, how come she never mentions it, why wont she realease critical documents that could shed light on her character and values

When Bill and Hill get up out of bed in the morning, they are thinking about how they can fool the voters again today

[red states rule]

I agree, she is not an honest person

rose law firm cough, how come she never mentions it, why wont she realease critical documents that could shed light on her character and values

They are 2 corrupt politicans who care only about power

[82Marine89]

MANCHESTER, N.H. - Hillary Rodham Clinton lost the luxury of being polite along with the Iowa caucuses. On the ropes after a third-place finish, Clinton is coming out swinging against new Democratic front-runner Barack Obama with a vigor she hasn't shown before in the contest she used to lead. She says she is the candidate who deserves the mantle of change, not this newcomer Obama.

Sunday morning, with the New Hampshire primary in sight, she told supporters here, "There's a big difference between talking and acting, between promising and performing. Over the next three days, I'm going to be making that case."

She had made the same case just feet from Obama in a debate the night before, raising her voice and jabbing her finger as she said, "I'm not just running on a promise of change. I'm running on 35 years of change."

Obama, speaking at a rally in Manchester on Sunday, retorted to another of Clinton's comments in the debate.

"For many months I've been teased, almost derided for talking about hope," he said. "You saw it in the debates last night. One of my opponents said we can't just, you know, offer the American people false hopes about what we can get done."

"I know how hard this will be," he said. "I know how hard it is going to be for us to deliver health care for Americans who need it. ... I know we will be resisted when we try to make this economy more balanced and more fair."

Obama also sought to take any remaining thunder from John Edwards, who has been waging a populist campaign focused on blistering criticism of corporate America. Obama cast himself as distinct from Edwards — and from Clinton's claim that only she knows how to confront Republicans.

"Change can't just come from anger," Obama said. "It won't come from turning up the heat on Republicans."

During the debate, Clinton's criticism got Obama and John Edwards ganging up on her. Edwards apparently decided if he can't beat Obama in New Hampshire, he'll try to join him.

"Both of us are powerful voices for change," Edwards said at the debate, rising to Obama's defense. "And if I might add, we finished first and second in the Iowa caucus, I think in part as a result of that."

Edwards didn't mention he beat Clinton for second place by only three-tenths of a percentage point. He's calculated that if he can force Clinton out of the race, he might have a chance of beating Obama in a two-man contest.

Asked Sunday about an alliance with Obama, Edwards said, "I think there is a conviction alliance." Then he added, "First of all, I wouldn't go so far as to call it an alliance. Let me disagree with that. ..."

Click for stomach turning conclusion...

[red states rule]

Seems the Clinton machine is starting to crack under the building pressure

[82Marine89]

I got this in an email news letter...

AS THE CLINTON TURNS

Hillary keeps talking about her 35 years as an agent for change. However, she’s only been in the Senate for seven years. The other 28 years is simply Hillary taking credit for her husband’s experience as governor and president. Hillary wants the nation to buy into the notion that by virtue of her nuptials to Bill, she’s every bit as experienced as Bill. Experience by osmosis, I guess.

In un-related news, this just in...

“In a news conference Deanna Favre announced she will be the starting QB for the Packers this coming Sunday. Deanna asserts that she is qualified to be starting QB because she has spent the past 16 years married to Brett while he played QB for the Packers. During this period of time she became familiar with the definition of a corner blitz, and is now completely comfortable with other terminology of the Packers offense. A survey of Packers fans shows that 50% of those polled supported the move.”

[red states rule]

Now it is Bill's fault Hillary is losing


What if Bill Secretly Wants Hillary to Lose?
Posted January 6, 2008 | 12:02 PM (EST)


Before Iowa, I was rooting for Hillary Clinton. For purely emotional reasons. First, I wanted to see the first woman president in my lifetime. Second, I wanted the happy ending. I wanted Hillary to get hers at last.

I'm not someone who sucks it up and stands by her horndog man, but I like to believe it's an option. I want to believe that we're all human and we disappoint each other -- but that some people can hang in and work it out, no matter what.

I was looking forward to seeing someone who kept her eyes on the prize actually get the prize.

After Iowa, when the stench of loser hit Hillary, I realized what 9/11, George Bush and a catastrophic war had almost wiped out. I forgot for a minute that Iowa was not Hillary's first big humiliation.

I remembered the "bimbo eruptions."

I thought of the times Bill Clinton hung Hillary out to dry. Or, Hillary let herself be hung out to dry, depending on how you look at it.

I remembered Hillary on 60 Minutes in 1992 defending Bill against allegations he had an affair with Gennifer Flowers; Hillary on The Today Show in 1998 defending Bill against the Monica Lewinsky allegations and blaming a "vast right-wing conspiracy."

It occurred to me: If I were gunning for the biggest job in the world, would I want a guy who repeatedly publicly humiliated me as my cornerman?

for the complete article

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dana-k...n_b_80050.html

[stephanie]

come on...of course it's someones else's fault...

Good grief you all can't believe that.........
"THE CLINTONS" could be losing

It has to be a VAST RIGHT WING conspiracy....

Sheees.....we all know this...

[red states rule]

come on...of course it's someones else's fault...

Good grief you all can't believe that.........
"THE CLINTONS" could be losing

It has to be a VAST RIGHT WING conspiracy....

Sheees.....we all know this...

But a lib is blaming Bill stephanie!!!

I agree with you though. The fact Hilary is losing is not her fault. It is the sexism that still exists in America.

The smartest women in world if being the victim here

Or could it be the Clintons are NOT the political gods the left would have you believe?

[stephanie]

But a lib is blaming Bill stephanie!!!

I agree with you though. The fact Hilary is losing is not her fault. It is the sexism that still exists in America.

The smartest women in world if being the victim here

Or could it be the Clintons are NOT the political gods the left would have you believe?

ThE article coming from the Huffo post....is...........GREAT...

[red states rule]

ThE article coming from the Huffo post....is...........GREAT...

It would seem libs are willing to toss Bill under the Obama driven bus to make excuses for Hillary

I suspect Hillary will suffer another big loss tonight - and the liberal media will try to blame the voters and Bill for it

[stephanie]

It would seem libs are willing to toss Bill under the Obama driven bus to make excuses for Hillary

I suspect Hillary will suffer another big loss tonight - and the liberal media will try to blame the voters and Bill for it

Yep...it seems the Demorat party has resorted to tossing aside ANYONE(look at mother sheehan) to get their GOAL...which is not what is good for the American people, but what is good only for the Demorat party to win...

Now how did we suspect this???

[red states rule]

Yep...it seems the Demorat party has resorted to tossing aside ANYONE(look at mother sheehan) to get their GOAL...which is not what is good for the American people, but what is good only for the Demorat party to win...

Now how did we suspect this???

Look how the Dems have STOPPED talking about Iraq. For 4 years, we had daily press confrences calling for surrender. We had Dems insulting and smearing the troops (they have ben called terrorists, cold blooded killers, compared to Pol Pot and Nazi's) and Harry Reid called the war lost

Now, that that we are WINNING in Iraq, Dems hardly ever mention Iraq. No troops deaths make boring pres conferences I guess

As always, the ONLY think that matters to Dems is power. Everything else is meaningless