45% Say Hillary Is Corrupt

an interesting dynamic is in play. If the republicans nominate Rudy - a thrice married, adulterer who is pro gun control, pro gay rights, and pro-abortion... the religious right wing of the republican party may not vote for Hillary, but they may stay home rather than vote for Rudy.

Could be, some evidence of such in 2006.
 
Could be, some evidence of such in 2006.

I think 2006 showed the reluctance of the right half of the political spectrum to continue to actively support the failed war policies of the Bush administration. 2008 will be all of that, PLUS all that the top of the ticket fails to bring vis a vis the religious right. You will have normal conservatives who are sick of this war staying home or, even worse for the R's, voting for the democrat..and you will have the religious right just staying home rather than compromise their principles by voting for rudy.
 
I think 2006 showed the reluctance of the right half of the political spectrum to continue to actively support the failed war policies of the Bush administration. 2008 will be all of that, PLUS all that the top of the ticket fails to bring vis a vis the religious right. You will have normal conservatives who are sick of this war staying home or, even worse for the R's, voting for the democrat..and you will have the religious right just staying home rather than compromise their principles by voting for rudy.

I think you might be wrong on your analysis, time will prove which of us is correct.
 
the results of the 2006 exit polling is a matter of fact, and not conjecture. Of course, anything either of us predicts about 2008 is just that - a prediction and -obviously - time WILL tell which of us is more correct.
 
This is like the pot calling the kettle black.. And people thought Bush was not corrupt ??? WTF... This is a joke right. Name me one damn politician that isnt corrupt?

It is early, but Hilliary has alot to overcome


Almost Half of Americans Fear Corruption if Clintons Return to White House, Poll Finds
By Fred Lucas
CNSNews.com Staff Writer
April 05, 2007

(CNSNews.com) - More than six years after the Clintons left the White House, nearly half of the respondents in a new poll -- 45 percent -- worry that if they return, they could bring "high levels of corruption" with them.

A Zogby International poll released Thursday in Washington highlights in particular concerns about former President Bill Clinton's ability to "behave honestly in the White House" if his wife, Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.), is elected president in 2008.

The poll results indicate that scandals which dogged the Clinton administration remain relevant to a significant number of voters.

The 45 percent figure would likely be even higher, said Tom Fitton, president of conservative watchdog group Judicial Watch, if elected officials and the media were more willing to ask tough questions about numerous ethical quandaries that surrounded the Clinton administration and the then-first lady's role in those issues.

"It's because the media doesn't want to talk about it and the American leaders won't talk about it," Fitton said. "The fact that no-one is talking about it and people are still concerned speaks volumes."

Judicial Watch sponsored the poll.

Forty-two percent of respondents also said they view Sen. Clinton as corrupt. Of those, 17 percent regard her as "very corrupt."

The New York senator is leading the pack among Democratic candidates for president in most polls. She announced this week that she had shattered previous fundraising records - though just slightly above her top primary rival, Illinois Sen. Barack Obama.

The Clintons weathered numerous investigations into alleged criminal conduct and ethical lapses during the Clinton presidency, and in some of them Hillary Clinton was suspected to have played a major role.

Fitton pointed out that these include: the Whitewater probe, in which independent counsel Robert Fiske said she was not truthful to a federal grand jury but did not believe he could obtain an indictment from a Washington D.C. jury; the firings in the White House travel office; and smears against women from her husband's past through the hiring of private investigators during the 1992 campaign to curb what became known as "bimbo eruptions."

These are all questions Sen. Clinton should answer, Fitton said. He added that every other candidate should also answer questions about their own past ethical lapses.

"Some are old issues in the sense that they took place several years ago," Fitton said. "But they're new issues in the sense that they don't have answers."

Perhaps the best news for Bill Clinton from the new poll was its finding that 50 percent believe he would behave honestly in the White House. Thirty-six percent of respondents felt otherwise, while the remaining 14 percent was undecided on the issue.

On a broader question, 93 percent of respondents said they believe corruption is still a significant problem in Washington, and 78 percent think bigger government leads to bigger corruption.

More to come.
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Page=/Politics/archive/200704/POL20070405b.html
 
or witness tampering, obstruction of justice, perjury, as well as the Chinese funny money

Mere details to the left I know

You left out some:
http://www.cuttingedge.org/articles/scandals.cfm

As usual, opinion polls will be rigged and skewed to persuade the dumbed-down public that Hillary is a beloved favorite of the people. Her opponents, on the other hand, will be caricatured as insensitive, immoral, ignorant, political wannabes lacking the brains, the political acumen, and the good sense necessary for high office. Hillary will be viewed as the wise, all-knowing, caring candidate who loves families, women, and little children. She’ll be shown as the great, benevolent, virtuous brain who deeply feels the pain of the hurting, downtrodden masses.
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/hillary_shalll_be_president.htm
hillary_cronkite_talbutt100.jpg

spider1.jpg


Hilary Clinton has the blessings of the Royal Institute for International Affairs (RIIA) in London and the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). It really doesn't matter what the citizens of the US think. We are living in a New World Order illussion.
1Phoenix_Hillary_Pearl_Broach.jpg
hillary-phoenix-r.jpg
[IMGhttp://www.syti.net/Images/IlluminatisManipulations.jpg[/IMG]
hillary-picking.jpg

hillary.jpg

IlluminatisManipulations.jpg
 
The End of Inevitability
The Clinton camp pressed donors to give only to Hillary. Then the strategy backfired.

By Richard Wolffe
Newsweek
April 16, 2007 issue - There's a turncoat inside Hillary Clinton's money machine. Over the past several years, Leonore Blitz has helped raise about $250,000 for Clinton's Senate races, and she signed up early to help the new presidential campaign. But in recent weeks the Manhattan marketing consultant has secretly attended finance meetings and fund-raisers for Clinton's archrival, Barack Obama. Under intense pressure from the Clinton team to pick sides, Blitz—who bundled more than $1 million for John Kerry in 2004—felt deeply conflicted. Clinton operatives have warned donors not to contribute to other campaigns, and put a price on disloyalty: early supporters will be valued and latecomers scorned. But now Blitz is coming out of the shadows, ready to test the rules. "I have been a lifelong advocate of women and minorities' participating and running for political office," she told NEWSWEEK last week. "Therefore, I'm supporting both Clinton and Obama."

The Clinton campaign denies that it has strong-armed anyone, saying the warnings were made in jest. But whatever tactics Clinton is using, she cannot be happy about how they're working. Clinton operatives had described March 31, the reporting deadline for initial fund-raising, as "the first primary." Their aim was to knock out weaker rivals and reinforce Clinton's aura of invincibility. As it happened, Obama won the money contest with $23.5 million for the primaries, while Clinton raised an estimated $20 million. (The remainder of Clinton's cash—an additional $16 million—is either destined for the general election or was carried over from her Senate race last year.) Clinton attracted half the number of donors that Obama recruited, despite the Illinois senator's late start in mid-January. Online fund-raisers contributed about a third less to Clinton than to Obama, giving her $4.2 million, compared with his $6.9 million.

What happened to the Clinton juggernaut? The answer lies partly in her go-for-broke strategy. There's a fine line between confidence and arrogance, and for some fund-raisers the Clinton team crossed it. "They clearly communicated a message that this candidacy is inevitable because we'll have more experienced consultants, more political insiders, more money and more of every resource that is vital to being nominated," says a prominent New York donor who joined the Obama camp but declined to be named to protect friendships with Clinton supporters. "Therefore, you are politically stupid if you don't get it, if you can't add."

Big donors to any campaign are keenly interested in what their money gets them. Newcomers to Clinton's orbit don't expect to have much influence or access. So they have fewer reasons to call on wealthy friends for more cash. "That tent seemed pretty much full," says Howard Gutman, a D.C. lawyer who was part of the small team that raised $10 million for Mark Warner's aborted presidential effort. Several campaigns courted Gutman, but he chose Obama over Clinton. "I could raise money from now to eternity and not really be on the radar screen. And the Obama camp seemed to offer more upside in terms of personal fun for the next year and change for the country for the future." In that way, the start-up feel of the Obama campaign—even with its lack of manpower and experience—is a selling point for some donors. "The fact that this is new and people are having their input and also having a voice in the process is all part of the attraction," says Penny Pritzker, Obama's national finance chair. (The campaign has mirrored that on its Web site, asking supporters to contribute policy ideas.)

A handful of old friends from Bill Clinton's campaigns are setting aside loyalties to join Obama's camp. Alan Solomont was an overnight guest at the Clinton White House in the first term, and the national party's finance chair in the second. Now he's raising cash for Obama because, Solomont says, he represents change. "People are ready for a new generation, a new face and a new voice," Solomont tells NEWSWEEK. "And Barack Obama is the only candidate who speaks to that."

Of course, the money race has only just begun: the first real primaries are still nine months away. In the peculiar expectations game of this early phase, Obama must now prove that he's not a one-quarter wonder. His fund-raisers believe they have room for growth among the 45,000 online donors who gave less than $100 last quarter. But they also are bracing for a big comeback from their rivals.

Clinton's network of consultants and deep-pocketed friends may be her best asset in a long, expensive contest. But her big campaign machine is also costly. Clinton spent on average more than $1.4 million a month during her Senate campaign last year, including $400,000 a month on consultants. It's not clear how much cash she's burning now, but her consultants remain the same.

Finding a lot of new donors, even among some of Clinton's natural allies, may not be easy. Blitz founded the National Women Business Leaders Council for the DNC in 2004. But when she called on her group to attend a Clinton fund-raiser last month, less than a third signed up. "I was surprised when I found out this wasn't a greater percentage of women," she says. "I know there are some major New York women donors that are not supporting Hillary to the extent they could." Why not? Hope Winthrop also raised a seven-figure sum for Kerry in '04 and thinks of Clinton as "a great senator." But she's more attracted to what she sees as Obama's freshness. "There was a sense of inevitability around the Clinton campaign that maybe made people a little wary," she says. "Now they will see there are several choices out there and it's not all locked up." That's the problem with inevitability: once the all-powerful aura is gone, it's hard to get it back.

With Holly Bailey, Jonathan Darman and Eleanor Clift

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17995773/site/newsweek/page/2/
 
Well, at least 45% get the picture. If the American voters are so stupid as to send Hillary to the White House, we will not only have the Chinese stealing us blind again, but also the Arabs will be given free access as well, if the big money deals Bill has been making with the ME countries to line his own pockets is any indicator. And wouldn't Bill have the time of his life in those rentals of the Lincoln Bedroom? And, of course, we could be assured that all the big time criminals would be issued a Hillary pardon.
 
Well, at least 45% get the picture. If the American voters are so stupid as to send Hillary to the White House, we will not only have the Chinese stealing us blind again, but also the Arabs will be given free access as well, if the big money deals Bill has been making with the ME countries to line his own pockets is any indicator. And wouldn't Bill have the time of his life in those rentals of the Lincoln Bedroom? And, of course, we could be assured that all the big time criminals would be issued a Hillary pardon.

I am not worried. With the Electoral Map the way it is, I do see Hillary or Obama winning

The way libs continue to slander the South, the South will not go Democrat

The WH will stay Republican, and the way Dems are stepping in it - the House and maybe the Senate will go back to the Republicans in 08
 
Yep, we already had that one figured out. Only the left-wing rags passing off opinion as news are the REAL DEAL! :eusa_whistle:

Nope. Don't listen to talk radio at all (except Classical Music in my car). I prefer to get my news from various sources and then compare. I mostly watch Fox/CNN just to weed out the facts from the opinions. Why do you think Air America is failing so badly?? Because we libs don't LISTEN TO IT. Cons on the other hand can't live without thier daily dose of Rush/Hannity/Oreilley/Savage.....etc.
 
Nope. Don't listen to talk radio at all (except Classical Music in my car). I prefer to get my news from various sources and then compare. I mostly watch Fox/CNN just to weed out the facts from the opinions. Why do you think Air America is failing so badly?? Because we libs don't LISTEN TO IT. Cons on the other hand can't live without thier daily dose of Rush/Hannity/Oreilley/Savage.....etc.

Libs listen to Rush, Sean, and O'Reilley as well

Hilliary is in deep trouble and she knows it.
 
Hillary is in trouble

She had to transfer $10 miilion from her Senate accounts to beat Obama in the money race

I do not know if she can take much mor eof this. Her ego has been crushed lately and the Red Queen is seething
 

Forum List

Back
Top