Clinton has 66% approval rating

[hortysir]

"The incredible hypocrisy stands.

It's like being against abortion because it kills babies and then driving a fat 4X4 and sending American soldiers to go kill babies overseas to get oil."

What exactly about this opinion upsets certain of those allergic to the first amendment?

46 hours





I'm just exercising MY first amendment right to tell you to **** yourself

 

[there4eyeM]

The incredible hypocrisy stands.

It's like being against abortion because it kills babies and then driving a fat 4X4 and sending soldiers to go kill babies overseas to get oil.

What is wrong in this opinion?

 

[Caroljo]

"The incredible hypocrisy stands.

It's like being against abortion because it kills babies and then driving a fat 4X4 and sending American soldiers to go kill babies overseas to get oil."

What exactly about this opinion upsets certain of those allergic to the first amendment?

If you don't know that you ARE incredibly stupid....it's not worth answering.

 

[there4eyeM]

In the absence of intelligent response....

 

[hortysir]

The incredible hypocrisy stands.

It's like being against abortion because it kills babies and then driving a fat 4X4 and sending American soldiers to go kill babies overseas to get oil.

What is wrong in this opinion?

In the absence of intelligent response....

Noted

 

[Stephanie]

Maybe they'll drag out John Kerry and Al Gore next

This is all good news for Romney they have to bring in Clinton..

tsk tsk

 

[pwjohn]

And he's stumping for Obama. He'll have a leading role at the convention.

No more is Clinton attacked as far-left Sixties radical—he is recognized as the essentially centrist Southern governor he always said he was. His wife—perhaps even more hated by the right in the 1990s—is widely regarded as a stabilizing force in the Obama administration as secretary of state.

One interpretation of this reversal of fortune is that the Clintons look good because the Obamas are so bad. But reflect on the fact that so many of the attacks are the same—including a column originally published on WorldNetDaily calling Clinton a Marxist Manchurian Candidate—and you quickly come to the more obvious conclusion that the problem lies in the reflexive hyper-partisanship that distorts the characters of political figures beyond realistic recognition.

Over time, we start to see these figures more clearly. No one is as good as intense advocates believe or as bad as overheated opponents insist. But I think it is worthwhile to note that the more reasoned criticism of Sarah Palin now seems to be widely accepted. And on the flip side, American consensus about Bill Clinton—for all his well-documented flaws—has erred on the side of his moderate defenders. Objectivity is elusive, but eventually something like balance creeps into our assessments. The result is not always nonpartisan.

The takeaway for this current election is to not fall for the overheated attacks—or overzealous defenses—of either candidate, especially when they echo old fear-mongering scripts. Falling for the fever of hyper-partisanship tends to make fools of us all, in time.

The above quote is actually on an article about how Sarah Palin is darn near persona non grata with the Republican Party these days, but I felt the best points made were at the tail-end of the article, in the above quote.

Why Sarah Palin

Wasn't Bill Clinton responsible for the repeal of of the Glass-Stegall act back in 1999 that has since left our nations economy a smoking ruin ????????

 

[8537]

And he's stumping for Obama. He'll have a leading role at the convention.

No more is Clinton attacked as far-left Sixties radical—he is recognized as the essentially centrist Southern governor he always said he was. His wife—perhaps even more hated by the right in the 1990s—is widely regarded as a stabilizing force in the Obama administration as secretary of state.

One interpretation of this reversal of fortune is that the Clintons look good because the Obamas are so bad. But reflect on the fact that so many of the attacks are the same—including a column originally published on WorldNetDaily calling Clinton a Marxist Manchurian Candidate—and you quickly come to the more obvious conclusion that the problem lies in the reflexive hyper-partisanship that distorts the characters of political figures beyond realistic recognition.

Over time, we start to see these figures more clearly. No one is as good as intense advocates believe or as bad as overheated opponents insist. But I think it is worthwhile to note that the more reasoned criticism of Sarah Palin now seems to be widely accepted. And on the flip side, American consensus about Bill Clinton—for all his well-documented flaws—has erred on the side of his moderate defenders. Objectivity is elusive, but eventually something like balance creeps into our assessments. The result is not always nonpartisan.

The takeaway for this current election is to not fall for the overheated attacks—or overzealous defenses—of either candidate, especially when they echo old fear-mongering scripts. Falling for the fever of hyper-partisanship tends to make fools of us all, in time.

The above quote is actually on an article about how Sarah Palin is darn near persona non grata with the Republican Party these days, but I felt the best points made were at the tail-end of the article, in the above quote.

Why Sarah Palin

Wasn't Bill Clinton responsible for the repeal of of the Glass-Stegall act back in 1999 that has since left our nations economy a smoking ruin ????????

You mean Gramm-Leach-Bliley?

Can you remind me what party those three were from?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Nah, not at all. TPM can have some victories, and Cruz may be one, but it won't be 2010 again, because it has shot its bolt. Besides, Cruz will kiss Mitt's behind. Watch. Ted will defect in a heartbeat to the Romneyites once he is in and turn his back on the Texas far right credulous. I know a lot of them, particularly on the state board of education. Wackos!!!!

No, it will not be 2010 again, the TPM has shot its bolt.

Guess we ought to wait and see what happens here in Texas... we have a major vote going on here between Ted Cruz and David Dewhurst.

Cruz is the Tea Party candidate.... he should lose miserably if the TPM has "shot its bolt". After all... he was trailing Dewhurst not too long ago, but the Tea Party got behind him and he is catching up quickly.

 

[Stephanie]

Nah, not at all. TPM can have some victories, and Cruz may be one, but it won't be 2010 again, because it has shot its bolt. Besides, Cruz will kiss Mitt's behind. Watch. Ted will defect in a heartbeat to the Romneyites once he is in and turn his back on the Texas far right credulous. I know a lot of them, particularly on the state board of education. Wackos!!!!

No, it will not be 2010 again, the TPM has shot its bolt.

Guess we ought to wait and see what happens here in Texas... we have a major vote going on here between Ted Cruz and David Dewhurst.

Cruz is the Tea Party candidate.... he should lose miserably if the TPM has "shot its bolt". After all... he was trailing Dewhurst not too long ago, but the Tea Party got behind him and he is catching up quickly.

lol, jakie you know everyone and know everything that will happen cause you got that magic crystal ball..

 

[JakeStarkey]

Because from west Florida to east Texas, in GOP politics, I have come to know a lot of people in the last 25 years.

Nah, Joe Smith used crystal balls or whatever. And that lady crime psychic on TV, too!

 

[auditor0007]

Liz Warren is going to lead a "genuine Cherokee Opening Ceremony". Should be fun

Sorry, but the so called Warren debacle is only making waves with right wing fanatics in political forums. Nobody else gives a shit.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Warren and Brown were six days ago in a dead heat in the polling. It will come to the wire. Either way, a liberal will hold the seat.

 

[auditor0007]

Are the democrats so incredibly nervous they need to pull out Billy Blowjob as a centerpiece?

Is there something wrong with Obama's record?

Romney can only wish that he had someone with Clinton's credentials stumping for him.

 

[8537]

Are the democrats so incredibly nervous they need to pull out Billy Blowjob as a centerpiece?

Is there something wrong with Obama's record?

Romney can only wish that he had someone with Clinton's credentials stumping for him.

I don't think you have to worry about either former Bush president showing up at Romney's rightwing coronation. Nor either of their vice presidents.

 

[auditor0007]

Are the democrats so incredibly nervous they need to pull out Billy Blowjob as a centerpiece?

Is there something wrong with Obama's record?

You know it...Obama be scared..as well he should be..2010 anyone?

We could see a repeat of 2010. Then again, we could also see a complete flip from 2010 where the Dems take back the House, increase their lead in the Senate, and win keep the White House. The House will likely be won on the coattails of the presidential vote. If Obama wins with 54% or more, the Dems will take back the House. Now, in order for that to happen, Romney is going to have to take a substantial slide, but anything is possible. The debates are going to be watched by a lot of people this year. Bad debate performances by either candidate could be costly.

 

[Stephanie]

Are the democrats so incredibly nervous they need to pull out Billy Blowjob as a centerpiece?

Is there something wrong with Obama's record?

Romney can only wish that he had someone with Clinton's credentials stumping for him.

oh yeah, a laughing stock...

 

[buckeye45_73]

Clinton's image is immensely aided by the contrast with George II.

According to one source (WIKI article about Clinton), he left office with the highest end-of-office approval rating of any U.S. president since World War II. Apparently the fallout from the Monica Lewinski scandal did not do any lasting damage to his popularity.

The "scandal" really should have been the lengths the conservatives in this country will go to oust a democratically elected opposition leader.

You're gay!

 

[pwjohn]

And he's stumping for Obama. He'll have a leading role at the convention.



The above quote is actually on an article about how Sarah Palin is darn near persona non grata with the Republican Party these days, but I felt the best points made were at the tail-end of the article, in the above quote.

Why Sarah Palin

Wasn't Bill Clinton responsible for the repeal of of the Glass-Stegall act back in 1999 that has since left our nations economy a smoking ruin ????????

You mean Gramm-Leach-Bliley?

Can you remind me what party those three were from?

The repeal of Glass-Stegall was signed into law by President Bill Clinton..

 

[Trajan]

this is NOT the clean debate forum.....carry on.