Redstate

Recently, she claimed Obama was soft on mandatory sentences - running to his right, then she claimed he was not pro-choice enough - running to his left. I also just heard on Anderson Cooper that her campaign is frantically calling donors that haven't given the maximum to get more cash. She had a lot of money but I'm not sure how much she has left.

She never gave an interview in the first place. The more you see her the less you like her. I take back what I said about doing more interviews. I still think she should run to his right, though. She should have never run to the left, but she might as well run to his right, because it might be the only thing that will work. The country has not elected anyone as liberal as Obama in modern times, and he truly is a far left liberal. She needs to expose this and run to his right. I can not stand Hillary, but she is not anywhere near as far left as Obama. He really scares the *hit out of me. I think the only thing I’ve ever heard him say that was not in lock step with the far left was when he said we should take out Osama in Pakistan if we had the intelligence. The truth is Republicans should be excited about a Democrat nominee who is a far left kook on paper. It’s taking down the beloved man that’s the hard part.

I guess you can use the words Left and Liberal over and over. I'm sure that will convince people.

Just curious but what specific policies of his do you consider far left?

And you think Hillary should run to the RIGHT? Why? So she can untap that huge reserve of Conservatives voters who are dying to vote for her? She's already viewed as Republican-lite by most Democrats. How does moving to the right help her?

Your views on the Democrats are, interesting.

There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy

Once his voting record is discussed. Flyer, Obama is a lib's lib. One example: he's the the left of NARAL! Before the practice was outlawed (thank God) by the US Congress, Illinois had a decision to make. In the scenario of a botched abortion, where the baby was born alive, the Illinois legislature was pondering whether or not they just ignore the baby and LET IT DIE. Obama voted IN FAVOR of this practice. Even NARAL said it went too far!

Obama is enjoying his 15 min. of fame because he's a charismatic orator (I'll point out that Germany experienced a similar politician in the early 1940's). Yet Obama won't talk about ANYTHING of substance. He won't talk about his voting record or his liberal policies. Gee, I wonder why. But we do get pictures in the news of teenage girls going ga-ga over the guy like groupies at an N-Sync concert.

Man, I can't wait til the general if he's nominated. Those will make for some very interesting debates.

www.scottbomb.com
Click here to donate to the Fred Thompson campaign.

Looking back through most of the recent presidents we've elected, I think it's pretty easy to see that Obama has "it." You can define "it" however you want -- charisma, Q factor, etc. But we all basically know what "it" is.

He's going to win big in NH today, I think it increasingly unlikely that HRC or anybody else will stand in his way for the nomination, and I think he'll romp in the general.

One thing he'd have going for him -- even if he was a weak candidate, which I don't think he is -- is the in-fighting among Republicans right now. I just don't see a happy resolution to it. The divisions are deeper and more meaningful than your typical primary fight.

Yes, he'll get more scrutiny now. Yes, his inexperience hurts him (some, not as much as it ought to).

But I'm thinking that Obama is something of a political freak. He may not be the most substantive guy to lead a presidential election. But that doesn't matter. I think he's avoiding substance because he realizes that it just opens him up to questions and doubts that he's not now getting.

But he's awfully good at speaking beautifully and inspiringly without saying much of anything.

Who exactly on the Republican side is going to want to make the debate about abortion? I guess if Huckabee wins he will. Who else?

Regardless abortion is a non-start in the Presidential elections.

Your second paragraph is petty. A Hitler reference? Really?

You know the feeling you guys are getting right now is EXACTLY the feeling that Democrats were feeling in 1980.

"Why are people supporting this guy?"

"His ideas are too extreme. Even George Bush thinks its Voodoo economics"

"His whole campaign is fluff about hope and how wonderful America is. What are his policies"?

Why in the world would Barack Obama want to talk about policies? No one cares! Politicians that make their campaign about policies are politicians that are watching from the sidelines by April(I'm looking at your Fred Thompson).

Policies don't excite people. Policies don't get people to get out of their chair and campaign for you.

Man, I can't wait til the general if he's nominated. Those will make for some very interesting debates.

That makes 2 of us.

There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy

What we're trying to say is that Obama is so far to the left that there's no way he'll survive in the general.

As for abortion, you're skating around my point. Obama was to the LEFT of one of the most pro-abortion groups in America - NARAL. NARAL was against letting babies born due to botched abortions die. Obama was all for it. Good Lord, how can ANYONE defend such a practice? Abortion is infanticide no matter what the age of the baby but even NARAL knows that a line has to be drawn somewhere.

No, I'm not calling Obama Hitler. What I'm saying is that the two share a similar trait, a trait that spelled doom for Germany. Hitler's policy positions were glossed over by his charisma. He was a great orator, promising to make Germany a great nation, to heal her of her wounds from WWI. Of course he had plans for Germany that he wasn't very forthright about. But he had rock-star status and the people fell in love with him and were ultimately duped. The similarity with Obama is striking. He gives long speeches about "bringing us all together" and he sounds like a great guy but he doesn't actually say anything about what he would do were he elected president. These things will come out later on in the debates. I'm not accusing him of plotting to build concentration camps. What I'm saying is that the man will NOT be elected based on his rock-star status alone and so far that's the only thing keeping his campaign afloat.

You say no one cares about policy. What universe do you live in? The kids who are flocking to Obama probably don't care but the grown-ups do and it's the grown-ups who are going to decide this election.

You're right, to a point, flyer. These people don't care about policy - they want a rock star.

www.scottbomb.com
Click here to donate to the Fred Thompson campaign.

The next Democratic candidate that you guys don't call far left will be the FIRST Democratic candidate that you guys don't consider far left. Carter, Mondale, Dukakis, Clinton, and Gore were all branded far lefties. It is an utter meaningless smear to me. Just like when the Left calls every Republican candidate a Far Right wingnut. Meaningless

Comparing him to Hitler is utterly ridiculous. Hitler ran on a campaign of severe nationalism in which he promised to bring Germany back to its rightful role as world power. It was overtly racist and fascist. Anyone who cared knew exactly what he was saying. He then proceeded to invalidate their Democratic government.

Just because the 2 are charismatic doesn't make them similar anymore than Reagan was similar to Hitler.

You say no one cares about policy. What universe do you live in? The kids who are flocking to Obama probably don't care but the grown-ups do and it's the grown-ups who are going to decide this election.

Really? Then why is Fred Thompson languishing on the bench while a sycophant and a charismatic populist are getting the attention.

It sure is fun to disparage the supporters of other candidates.

There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy

Really? Then why is Fred Thompson languishing on the bench while a sycophant and a charismatic populist are getting the attention?

That's a good question. Then again it's the press giving them all this attention. 48 states still have yet to vote.

www.scottbomb.com
Click here to donate to the Fred Thompson campaign.

It's like blaming the refs in sports.

Lots of states still have to vote. But he is a polling as a bottom feeder in NH. SC he is 5th.

If he doesn't get some traction before Feb 5th what are his realistic chances on Super Tuesday?

There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy

Flyer, I don't disagree with what you said. But the truth is that the advice you just debunked is no worse than any other way she can go, including the likely choice, which is 'bloody'. At the end of the day, her goose is cooked. There is no right answer. And going right is no more wrong than any of the others.

It might just be the most cunning, for its sheer unexpectedness.

I just don't see how going right is going to win Democratic voters. that is counter-intuitive.

Her image among Democrats is that she is too Conservative already. Going further right appeals to people that will never vote for her.

There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy

My coworker is a Hillary supporter. She is a volunteer for the campaign in SC. She is very engaged.

I got quite a surprise from her after Iowa. She said if Hillary doesn't get the nomination, she's going to have to cross the aisle. She doesn't trust Edwards or Obama on security. (She likes McCain, fwiw)

Going right on some things has obviously helped Hillary, as it did with Bill.
absentee

She's already locked up the New Democrat constituency. Who else is she bringing on board going further Left. How many Democrats do you really think are considering defection if Obama or Edwards are elected? That's a pretty small group.

There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy

I would have said none before. My coworker might, of course, be talking out of her. But she claims she is not alone among her friends with the campaign. If she were just Jane Doe I'd blow it off anyway, but she's a campaign volunteer.

Maybe the kos wing is the one that has illusions. That's all I'm saying.

absentee

But your co-worker is ALREADY a Hillary supporter. So moving Rightward isn't convincing her of anything.

That is my point. She already HAS that group. How does she get more voters?

There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy

Good point.

absentee

And as I said, I don't disagree. But play the scenario the opposite way (goes left)... who'd believe it, for the same reasons you cite? And how do you get to a guy's left who is on record wanting already-born babies who survived an abortion attempt to be left on a shelf until they die? Can it even be done?

Personally, I think her move won't be left/right. Neither will work. Not in a primary. She'll just try to saw his legs off, and let the blood fall where it may. And you know what? That won't work either, and that pretty much covers the bases. Besides crying, which she's ALSO tried.

Her goose is cooked. The best that can be said for her is that she's probably aware of it. But that doesn't mean she won't get out her chainsaw anyway, just in case. I think she will.

Personally I think she will go for the gender war. That will be her last ditch effort to break out. She will try to convince women that this whole election is about trying to keep a good woman down.

Gloria Steinham just wrote an article saying that people should for her BECAUSE she is a woman. No other reason.

There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy

Very hard to go negative against a likeable candidate. It would ultimately backfire.

I never counted him in. And he's dreaming if he thinks that somebody else's misfortune is going to benefit him. Edwards is and always has been a sham of a candidate. He's got ambition, but that's about it.

And I think Hillary's just finding out that Wes Pruden was right when he said that "inevitable" candidates can't lose even once. It rips the mask off the entire charade.

She got some bad advice -- and was just unfortunate enough to run in a cycle when a freakish political phenomenon decided to give it a shot. Now she knows what Tsongas etal felt like in 1992.

A lot of people are expecting her to only go down swinging violently. She may surprise people and graciously concede defeat.

But I can't possibly imagine that happening before February 5. Not with the money she's raised. Not with as much as she's put into it and as long as she's dreamed about it.

To concede would probably be to close the book on the Clintons' political careers -- unless she wants to just stay in the Senate (which I doubt she does). And I think she'd always regret it if she didn't give it everything she has.

Again, I think (my fellow) Republicans are hoping against hope that she'll go negative and get some rips in on Obama. But I think we need to start considering Obama the nominee and worrying about our own shop...which is a mess right now.

I'd be lying if I said I'm not having a difficult time envisioning our winning in November.

But I think her tears were genuine. She knows she is over. I think she is struggling. I have no doubt Bill would go for the throat. I know Hillary has a reputation for venom; but, my gut still sees some glimmer of class.

Heck, I'd love to see her destroy Obama . . . what great entertainment. But it really is not good for the country or anyone else. And she knows that. I keep going back to her basic Methodist upbringing. It will come out and she'll have some class.

I also agree we win in November. McCain/Thompson is the ticket and it will carry 40 states and 58% or more of the vote.

GEAUX TIGERS.

Steve Willis
Professor of Law
University of Florida College of Law

On O'Reilly tonight, Thompson was asked whether the nominee will be Obama or Clinton. He picked Clinton. At the end of the interview, he added that it may just be wishful thinking.

I think it will be Hillary. As Thompson noted, she's got a well-oiled organization.

In November, I see Thompson/McCain vs. Hillary/Edwards, with Thompson/McCain scoring big.

I suppose Hillary still has a sliver of a chance. I won't say she's definitively cooked. But she ain't far off. And that's why he said it was wishful thinking. I think the general, emerging consensus among Republicans is that we'd rather run against Hillary...and Obama's performance against her thus far demonstrates why. She's a weak candidate.

But, moreover, what scenario makes you "see" Fred Thompson getting the GOP nomination? Is that just because that's who you're supporting?

Fred placed in Iowa, which is respectable enough. But he's in single digits in NH and Huckabee's still strong in SC. I'm not sure Hillary won't be a major party nominee in November. I'm quite sure Fred Thompson won't be.

He "showed" in Iowa, not "placed."

I meant to say that I'm having a hard time envisioning a scenario where the Republican wins in '08. I just worded it horribly and the thought came out mangled.

The Republicans are so divided right now, with little hope of real, comprehensive reconciliation, that I just don't think there's much hope.

The only wildcard here is a possible Bloomberg candidacy. There's no telling what he does to the race. He might be the only shot we have.

But I can't see any of our candidates stopping Obama. Too many Republicans despise one or more of the candidates for whatever reason...to the point where no candidate can count universal support.

I'm thinking Thompson is probably the only one who could. But, while we're debating abortion, his campaign was one.

but right now you might be out on a limb. This race has just started. The voters are just now beginning to pay attention and we aren't sure how they feel. Past history tells us that Iowa and New Hampshire aren't good indicators. They don't tell us much about the rest of the country. My guess is that South Caroina is the first real test. We will know more then....

I see nothing to suggest she won't roll in the mud.

On Sunday was claiming that Obama violated NH campaign election laws by robo-calling people on the do not call list. Her evidence was 2 people that claim to have received the call. 2.

Amazingly she is actually trying to use the ol flip-flopper smear. I have no idea how she thinks that is going to work.

If she loses by 10+ she is going to get desperate. I don't think it will help her but she will.

There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy

McCain Thompson will win. Heck, even my Democrat wife said she'd vote for McCain over Obama. I talked to many dems today who said the same thing. I realize anecdotal evidence is not strong . . . but my 5 decades of being a political junkie tell me Hillary will surprise us with class. McCain will be nominated. He'll consider Lieberman, but greater powers will say no and he'll choose Thompson. We win going away.

Again: GEAUX TIGERS!!!!! Did anyone watch the game tonight?

Steve Willis
Professor of Law
University of Florida College of Law

We will find out who will win next November. But I daresay that you are being highly optimistic about the chances of the Republicans.

Bush fatigue is going to weigh heavily on the GOP.

There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy

When I look at Obama, I see black Jimmy Carter. Comes out of nowhere. Looks like a sincerely nice guy. Runs against a badly divided republican party at a time, when the general public feels (rightly or wrongly) very nervous about the direction of the country. Gets elected with no idea what he is doing (both at home and abroad) and makes the biggest mess possible.
.
I think he'll be a disaster as President, but I'm afarid he's going to be elected (particular with the press fully in the bag for him).
.
I don't see Hillary getting the Dem. nomination. I think a lot of people missed how much she is despised by both Democrats and Republicans.
.
I think the only reason she looked like the inevitable Democrat candidate early on, was because the Democrats hadn't identified anyone else who looked like a viable candidate. They have now identified that candidate.

It's fairly easy to draw comparisons to whomever you wish. And of course the favorite whipping post of Conservatives is Jimmy Carter, a flawed President operating in really bad times.

I think the comparison falls flat pretty quickly though. Carter was simply the guy that offered the Democrats the easiest win in election. A Deep South governor with military experience. He was the preferred choice because he couldn't lose.

Obama is a guy who built his own base. He has built a very strong organization. He created a message that, IMO, he knew would be very hard for others to penetrate particularly Hillary Clinton.

Honestly how different is his campaign from "It's morning in America"?

There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy

pressure has been to smear and attack. The only way her Methodist do-gooderism will appear will be if she decides it is finished. Otherwise, this will become a slimefest and it could even work although I wouldn't depend on it. She will show her "softer" side and cry on cue as she villifies a decent man.