Zogby: Hillary Defeatable by 5 GOP Frontrunners

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

There's still hope that I won't have to ask myself next November what the lesser of two evils is. I so hope that Obama runs against a good Republican candidate (not sure yet who that would be). And Gary, I hear you on the Obama/Clinton ticket - that is just so not going to happen. Hillary has an ego approximately the size of Manhattan. She ain't going to be the junior Senator from Illinois' running mate. Ever.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I can't view the video. Can you post the link?

That's not it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0So48eKMu10

Sorry, don't know where I got the other one. This is the time she said that she wanted to take the oil companies profits away to fund energy research.

How is it any less 'socialist' to form foreign policy around oil? Gary, I think you're kidding yourself if don't realize how much our government mettles with energy. Calling Hillary's plan, Socialism, is like calling Bush's plan to rebuild Iraq, Socialism. They either both are or not.

[GaryC 7]

I can't view the video. Can you post the link?

That's not it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0So48eKMu10

Sorry, don't know where I got the other one. This is the time she said that she wanted to take the oil companies profits away to fund energy research.

How is it any less 'socialist' to form foreign policy around oil? Gary, I think you're kidding yourself if don't realize how much our government mettles with energy. Calling Hillary's plan, Socialism, is like calling Bush's plan to rebuild Iraq, Socialism. They either both are or not.

I think you missed it. She said she wanted to take the oil companies profits away from them to fund her plan. Not tax, not give incentives to invest but take. That is the socialist part of it.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I can't view the video. Can you post the link?

That's not it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0So48eKMu10

Sorry, don't know where I got the other one. This is the time she said that she wanted to take the oil companies profits away to fund energy research.

How is it any less 'socialist' to form foreign policy around oil? Gary, I think you're kidding yourself if don't realize how much our government mettles with energy. Calling Hillary's plan, Socialism, is like calling Bush's plan to rebuild Iraq, Socialism. They either both are or not.

I think you missed it. She said she wanted to take the oil companies profits away from them to fund her plan. Not tax, not give incentives to invest but take. That is the socialist part of it.

Gary, we both know that no President can just take profits from corporations in this country. You fear is a bit exaggerated. On the other hand, do oil companies need to be relieved of hundreds of millions of dollars worth of royalties (that's what they pay to the US government for exploiting the resources of this country - our resources) by the treasury in light of these record profits as the Bush administration has afforded them? I think not.

[GaryC 7]

I can't view the video. Can you post the link?

That's not it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0So48eKMu10

Sorry, don't know where I got the other one. This is the time she said that she wanted to take the oil companies profits away to fund energy research.

How is it any less 'socialist' to form foreign policy around oil? Gary, I think you're kidding yourself if don't realize how much our government mettles with energy. Calling Hillary's plan, Socialism, is like calling Bush's plan to rebuild Iraq, Socialism. They either both are or not.

I think you missed it. She said she wanted to take the oil companies profits away from them to fund her plan. Not tax, not give incentives to invest but take. That is the socialist part of it.

Gary, we both know that no President can just take profits from corporations in this country. You fear is a bit exaggerated. On the other hand, do oil companies need to be relieved of hundreds of millions of dollars worth of royalties (that's what they pay to the US government for exploiting the resources of this country - our resources) by the treasury in light of these record profits as the Bush administration has afforded them? I think not.

But it does show where her mind-set is. Put that with her Hillarycare and you can see she wants the government to run everything. Taxing the rich and corporations in the manner she wants to do is in effect killing the goose that laid the golden egg. The rich and the corporations are the ones that give the rest of us our jobs. I think that they should pay their fair share, which they are already doing, but she takes it into the realm of socializm. I don't want a socialist running the country.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I can't view the video. Can you post the link?

That's not it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0So48eKMu10

Sorry, don't know where I got the other one. This is the time she said that she wanted to take the oil companies profits away to fund energy research.

How is it any less 'socialist' to form foreign policy around oil? Gary, I think you're kidding yourself if don't realize how much our government mettles with energy. Calling Hillary's plan, Socialism, is like calling Bush's plan to rebuild Iraq, Socialism. They either both are or not.

I think you missed it. She said she wanted to take the oil companies profits away from them to fund her plan. Not tax, not give incentives to invest but take. That is the socialist part of it.

Gary, we both know that no President can just take profits from corporations in this country. You fear is a bit exaggerated. On the other hand, do oil companies need to be relieved of hundreds of millions of dollars worth of royalties (that's what they pay to the US government for exploiting the resources of this country - our resources) by the treasury in light of these record profits as the Bush administration has afforded them? I think not.

But it does show where her mind-set is. Put that with her Hillarycare and you can see she wants the government to run everything. Taxing the rich and corporations in the manner she wants to do is in effect killing the goose that laid the golden egg. The rich and the corporations are the ones that give the rest of us our jobs. I think that they should pay their fair share, which they are already doing, but she takes it into the realm of socializm. I don't want a socialist running the country.

I don't want a socialist country either. Believe me, I grew up in one and I don't need no repeat of any of that. But I think it's time that the American middle class is rebuilt. And that is going to have to happen by re-balancing some of the wealth that has been continuously re-distributed from the bottom to the top over the past couple of decades. There's no denying that mega wealthy got mega wealthy at the expense of the American middle class. Spare me the "they give us jobs" #######. They ain't no damn charities. We make them rich is more like it.

Look at the whole sub-prime mortgage mess. You think that any of the jerks that instigated this whole mess to make millions will pay back a dime of their ill earned monies? They won't. Instead, they'll roam looking for their next prey.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I can't view the video. Can you post the link?

That's not it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0So48eKMu10

Sorry, don't know where I got the other one. This is the time she said that she wanted to take the oil companies profits away to fund energy research.

How is it any less 'socialist' to form foreign policy around oil? Gary, I think you're kidding yourself if don't realize how much our government mettles with energy. Calling Hillary's plan, Socialism, is like calling Bush's plan to rebuild Iraq, Socialism. They either both are or not.

I think you missed it. She said she wanted to take the oil companies profits away from them to fund her plan. Not tax, not give incentives to invest but take. That is the socialist part of it.

Gary, we both know that no President can just take profits from corporations in this country. You fear is a bit exaggerated. On the other hand, do oil companies need to be relieved of hundreds of millions of dollars worth of royalties (that's what they pay to the US government for exploiting the resources of this country - our resources) by the treasury in light of these record profits as the Bush administration has afforded them? I think not.

But it does show where her mind-set is. Put that with her Hillarycare and you can see she wants the government to run everything. Taxing the rich and corporations in the manner she wants to do is in effect killing the goose that laid the golden egg. The rich and the corporations are the ones that give the rest of us our jobs. I think that they should pay their fair share, which they are already doing, but she takes it into the realm of socializm. I don't want a socialist running the country.

Irrational fear mongering. There's nothing truthful about that and I think most Americans know that. In fact, I'm confident that Hillary knows that Government is NOT the answer to everything.

Edited November 27, 2007 by Mister Fancypants

[GaryC 7]

I can't view the video. Can you post the link?

That's not it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0So48eKMu10

Sorry, don't know where I got the other one. This is the time she said that she wanted to take the oil companies profits away to fund energy research.

How is it any less 'socialist' to form foreign policy around oil? Gary, I think you're kidding yourself if don't realize how much our government mettles with energy. Calling Hillary's plan, Socialism, is like calling Bush's plan to rebuild Iraq, Socialism. They either both are or not.

I think you missed it. She said she wanted to take the oil companies profits away from them to fund her plan. Not tax, not give incentives to invest but take. That is the socialist part of it.

Gary, we both know that no President can just take profits from corporations in this country. You fear is a bit exaggerated. On the other hand, do oil companies need to be relieved of hundreds of millions of dollars worth of royalties (that's what they pay to the US government for exploiting the resources of this country - our resources) by the treasury in light of these record profits as the Bush administration has afforded them? I think not.

But it does show where her mind-set is. Put that with her Hillarycare and you can see she wants the government to run everything. Taxing the rich and corporations in the manner she wants to do is in effect killing the goose that laid the golden egg. The rich and the corporations are the ones that give the rest of us our jobs. I think that they should pay their fair share, which they are already doing, but she takes it into the realm of socializm. I don't want a socialist running the country.

I don't want a socialist country either. Believe me, I grew up in one and I don't need no repeat of any of that. But I think it's time that the American middle class is rebuilt. And that is going to have to happen by re-balancing some of the wealth that has been continuously re-distributed from the bottom to the top over the past couple of decades. There's no denying that mega wealthy got mega wealthy at the expense of the American middle class. Spare me the "they give us jobs" #######. They ain't no damn charities. We make them rich is more like it.

Look at the whole sub-prime mortgage mess. You think that any of the jerks that instigated this whole mess to make millions will pay back a dime of their ill earned monies? They won't. Instead, they'll roam looking for their next prey.

Like it or not the rich do give us our jobs. I haven't ever seen a poor person give anyone a job, have you? You may or may not like the rich but we need them. I don't see rich people as the enemy or as a group of people that took from us to make themselves rich. I see them as the supplier of jobs and as a group of people that own the companies that produce all the things that we want and need. As you can see I am a supply sider and proud of it.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I can't view the video. Can you post the link?

That's not it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0So48eKMu10

Sorry, don't know where I got the other one. This is the time she said that she wanted to take the oil companies profits away to fund energy research.

How is it any less 'socialist' to form foreign policy around oil? Gary, I think you're kidding yourself if don't realize how much our government mettles with energy. Calling Hillary's plan, Socialism, is like calling Bush's plan to rebuild Iraq, Socialism. They either both are or not.

I think you missed it. She said she wanted to take the oil companies profits away from them to fund her plan. Not tax, not give incentives to invest but take. That is the socialist part of it.

Gary, we both know that no President can just take profits from corporations in this country. You fear is a bit exaggerated. On the other hand, do oil companies need to be relieved of hundreds of millions of dollars worth of royalties (that's what they pay to the US government for exploiting the resources of this country - our resources) by the treasury in light of these record profits as the Bush administration has afforded them? I think not.

But it does show where her mind-set is. Put that with her Hillarycare and you can see she wants the government to run everything. Taxing the rich and corporations in the manner she wants to do is in effect killing the goose that laid the golden egg. The rich and the corporations are the ones that give the rest of us our jobs. I think that they should pay their fair share, which they are already doing, but she takes it into the realm of socializm. I don't want a socialist running the country.

I don't want a socialist country either. Believe me, I grew up in one and I don't need no repeat of any of that. But I think it's time that the American middle class is rebuilt. And that is going to have to happen by re-balancing some of the wealth that has been continuously re-distributed from the bottom to the top over the past couple of decades. There's no denying that mega wealthy got mega wealthy at the expense of the American middle class. Spare me the "they give us jobs" #######. They ain't no damn charities. We make them rich is more like it.

Look at the whole sub-prime mortgage mess. You think that any of the jerks that instigated this whole mess to make millions will pay back a dime of their ill earned monies? They won't. Instead, they'll roam looking for their next prey.

Like it or not the rich do give us our jobs. I haven't ever seen a poor person give anyone a job, have you? You may or may not like the rich but we need them. I don't see rich people as the enemy or as a group of people that took from us to make themselves rich. I see them as the supplier of jobs and as a group of people that own the companies that produce all the things that we want and need. As you can see I am a supply sider and proud of it.

That's hardly the case anymore, Gary. A huge number of the mega rich are actually employees of publicly owned companies. And a good number take from you and me to make themselves rich - again, do you think the sub-prime lending crisis engineers have done this country and this economy a service? You think that CEO that golden parachute out of companies they have run into bankruptcy have done anyone but themselves a service? I sure don't. I think they ripped us all off.

[GaryC 7]

That's hardly the case anymore, Gary. A huge number of the mega rich are actually employees of publicly owned companies. And a good number take from you and me to make themselves rich - again, do you think the sub-prime lending crisis engineers have done this country and this economy a service? You think that CEO that golden parachute out of companies they have run into bankruptcy have done anyone but themselves a service? I sure don't. I think they ripped us all off.

Thats class envy and I don't subscribe to it. Are there crooked rich people? Sure there are. When they are caught then I say hang them by the nads. But as a group rich people and execs are the people create the jobs that allow the rest of us to make our living. Look at any third world country. You have a lot of poor people. Why? In part because there is a shortage of rich people and the companies they own. (I am not talking about the crooks, but the ones that own business' and employ other people) They are the ones that employ the rest of us. I say three cheers for the rich! I want to be one some day!

[GaryC 7]

I can't view the video. Can you post the link?

That's not it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0So48eKMu10

Sorry, don't know where I got the other one. This is the time she said that she wanted to take the oil companies profits away to fund energy research.

How is it any less 'socialist' to form foreign policy around oil? Gary, I think you're kidding yourself if don't realize how much our government mettles with energy. Calling Hillary's plan, Socialism, is like calling Bush's plan to rebuild Iraq, Socialism. They either both are or not.

I think you missed it. She said she wanted to take the oil companies profits away from them to fund her plan. Not tax, not give incentives to invest but take. That is the socialist part of it.

Gary, we both know that no President can just take profits from corporations in this country. You fear is a bit exaggerated. On the other hand, do oil companies need to be relieved of hundreds of millions of dollars worth of royalties (that's what they pay to the US government for exploiting the resources of this country - our resources) by the treasury in light of these record profits as the Bush administration has afforded them? I think not.

But it does show where her mind-set is. Put that with her Hillarycare and you can see she wants the government to run everything. Taxing the rich and corporations in the manner she wants to do is in effect killing the goose that laid the golden egg. The rich and the corporations are the ones that give the rest of us our jobs. I think that they should pay their fair share, which they are already doing, but she takes it into the realm of socializm. I don't want a socialist running the country.

Irrational fear mongering. There's nothing truthful about that and I think most Americans know that. In fact, I'm confident that Hillary knows that Government is NOT the answer to everything.

It is 100% the truth Steven. That woman is a real danger to our very way of life. Pull back that hard surface and below you will find a socialist. Just open your eyes and see what she has supported. Every one of them leads us to bigger government and to socialism.

[no name 1]

But it does show where her mind-set is. Put that with her Hillarycare and you can see she wants the government to run everything. Taxing the rich and corporations in the manner she wants to do is in effect killing the goose that laid the golden egg. The rich and the corporations are the ones that give the rest of us our jobs. I think that they should pay their fair share, which they are already doing, but she takes it into the realm of socializm. I don't want a socialist running the country.

It is 100% the truth Steven. That woman is a real danger to our very way of life. Pull back that hard surface and below you will find a socialist. Just open your eyes and see what she has supported. Every one of them leads us to bigger government and to socialism.

Crystal ball again?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Gallup: Neither Clinton nor Obama Trails Any GOPer

by Jonathan Singer, Mon Nov 26, 2007 at 06:28:30 PM EST

The folks at Zogby International surveyed a non-randomized group of internet users this month and divined that Hillary Clinton can't beat potential Republican nominees. Gallup, using more traditional polling methods, comes up with numbers that look a lot more like virtually all other polling.

R/D-------Clinton--Obama

Giuliani----44/49--45/45

McCain----44/50--44/47

Romney---38/54--35/52

Thompson-40/53--38/51

The results for Clinton and Obama are slightly different -- though those differences do not fall outside of the poll's margin of error.

What do these numbers mean? Not a whole heck of a lot this far out from election day. But inasmuch as the media continue to obsess about electability -- and it's not all their fault given the consistency with which some candidates have talked about electability -- these numbers help defuse the sentiment, at least on the Democratic side, that there are inherent differences within the top tier when it comes to being able to defeat potential Republican nominees.

http://www.mydd.com/story/2007/11/26/181144/89

Yeah that Zogby poll does seem a bit out there. But as noted above - most polls are, and certainly this far out of the election. No certainties whatsoever.

I still don't support Hillary however - but regardless of who gets elected I think its going to be pretty much business as usual. Interesting that the rich have bee brought into this as a positive - seeing as its special interest lobby groups who are behind the worst pandering and corruption in our political process.

A new candidate isn't going to make much of a difference if the landscape they operate in remains unchanged.

Edited November 27, 2007 by Number 6

[jundp 191]

I doubt if any other candidate would be this socialist. Chavez anyone?

César Chávez? One of the greatest Civil Rights leaders in the US? Who believed in restricted immigration? I'm confused. Or maybe I have the wrong Chávez?

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

Fckin thumb suckers!

Hillary! save me from myself.

Im tellin you. Alot of you really sicken me with your #######.

Just put your thumbs in your mouths and pray.

Later on!

What a fckin joke!