Zogby: Hillary Defeatable by 5 GOP Frontrunners

[GaryC 7]

Bills lack of focus enabled 9/11 to happen. Bush was handed that mess. You may not like they way he responded to it but the fact remains the attacks were planned and implimented on Bills watch.

Balanced budget? Give me a break. It was never balanced. And you seem to forget that Bush can't spend a dime. Congress does that. So if you have a problem point your finger that way.

My god are you grasping at some pathetic straws.

I'm sure Al Queda is plotting stuff now, can we say it was planned on Bush's watch?

Or Iran, let's say Bush laid the groundwork for that. He invaded Iraq & Afghanistan, not Clinton.

did you forget that one of the hijackers was in prison in israel and clinton got him released during his tenure?

Or the fact that he had several chances to nail UBL and didn't do it?

[no name 1]

Hillary is not Bill. Duh. You consistently attack Bill, yet as you yourself said, BILL(or GWB, thank god) ARE NOT RUNNING.

Edited November 28, 2007 by devilette

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Bubba didn't do anything to fix anything. All he did was get BJ's under the desk while the rest of the world spun on without him. I will take Bush any day over Clinton.

Those BJ's didn't kill a soul. Bush's wet-dream cost tens of thousands of lives. And we were afforded the first balanced budged in decades under Bubba. I'll take that over borrow and spend Bush any day of the week and twice on Sundays.

Bills lack of focus enabled 9/11 to happen. Bush was handed that mess. You may not like they way he responded to it but the fact remains the attacks were planned and implimented on Bills watch.

Balanced budget? Give me a break. It was never balanced. And you seem to forget that Bush can't spend a dime. Congress does that. So if you have a problem point your finger that way.

Busy re-writing history, are we? That wet-dream of Bush's that cost tens of thousands of mostly innocent lives had zippo, zero, nada, zilch, nil, not a first damn thing to do with 9/11 and you know it.

As for the budget, Clinton was the first President in decades to actually pay down national debt. Starting in FY 1998, the federal budget turned from red to black. In FY 1999, the federal budget had a surplus of 123 billion dollars. In FY 2000, that surplus grew to 230 billion. They turned off the national debt clock when Clinton was President. Remember? You can deny that all you want but it remains a fact: In the last years of the Clinton administration, the federal budgets had black bottom lines. Bush changed that right quick and had them turn that debt clock on again. You really gotta get out of that bubble, Gary.

Edited November 28, 2007 by Mr. Big Dog

[GaryC 7]

Bills lack of focus enabled 9/11 to happen. Bush was handed that mess. You may not like they way he responded to it but the fact remains the attacks were planned and implimented on Bills watch.

Balanced budget? Give me a break. It was never balanced. And you seem to forget that Bush can't spend a dime. Congress does that. So if you have a problem point your finger that way.

My god are you grasping at some pathetic straws.

Don't like the truth eh? Those are the facts and you cannot ignore them. 9/11 was Bills fault. And now you want to give the country to his wife? Sounds like a really bad idea to me!

Gary, I cannot wait for your bubble to be burst. I will laugh for WEEKS, maybe months.

Yeah? And what will burst it? I would say your bubble will burst next year. I see you have your Clinton blinders on. Back from your self imposed political abstanace?

[Ban Hammer 13,654]

here's a t-shirt saying made popular by monica

Biology 101- Sperm are not children.

i'm aware of that.......but some religions consider every one of them sacred

(cues the monty python "meaning of life" movie)

[no name 1]

Bills lack of focus enabled 9/11 to happen. Bush was handed that mess. You may not like they way he responded to it but the fact remains the attacks were planned and implimented on Bills watch.

Balanced budget? Give me a break. It was never balanced. And you seem to forget that Bush can't spend a dime. Congress does that. So if you have a problem point your finger that way.

My god are you grasping at some pathetic straws.

Don't like the truth eh? Those are the facts and you cannot ignore them. 9/11 was Bills fault. And now you want to give the country to his wife? Sounds like a really bad idea to me!

Gary, I cannot wait for your bubble to be burst. I will laugh for WEEKS, maybe months.

Yeah? And what will burst it? I would say your bubble will burst next year. I see you have your Clinton blinders on. Back from your self imposed political abstanace?

The Republican blinders Gary. You are a hypocrite, proven over & over today.

[GaryC 7]

Bubba didn't do anything to fix anything. All he did was get BJ's under the desk while the rest of the world spun on without him. I will take Bush any day over Clinton.

Those BJ's didn't kill a soul. Bush's wet-dream cost tens of thousands of lives. And we were afforded the first balanced budged in decades under Bubba. I'll take that over borrow and spend Bush any day of the week and twice on Sundays.

Bills lack of focus enabled 9/11 to happen. Bush was handed that mess. You may not like they way he responded to it but the fact remains the attacks were planned and implimented on Bills watch.

Balanced budget? Give me a break. It was never balanced. And you seem to forget that Bush can't spend a dime. Congress does that. So if you have a problem point your finger that way.

Busy re-writing history, are we? That wet-dream of Bush's that cost tens of thousands of mostly innocent lives had zippo, zero, nada, zilch, nil, not a first damn thing to do with 9/11 and you know it.

As for the budget, Clinton was the first President in decades to actually reduce national debt. Starting in FY 1998, the federal budget turned from red to black. In FY 1999, the federal budget had a surplus of 123 billion dollars. In FY 2000, that surplus grew to 230 billion. They turned off the national debt clock when Clinton was President. Remember? You can deny that all you want but it remains a fact: In the last years of the Clinton administration, the federal budgets had black bottom lines. Bush changed that right quick and had them turn that debt clock on again. You really gotta get out of that bubble, Gary.

I think you are re-writing history. Clinton never balanced the budget, and he never had a surplus.

The Myth of the Clinton Surplus

October 31st, 2007

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Time and time again, anyone reading the mainstream news or reading articles on the Internet will read the claim that President Clinton not only balanced the budget, but had a surplus. This is then used as an argument to further highlight the fiscal irresponsibility of the federal government under the Bush administration.

The claim is generally made that Clinton had a surplus of $69 billion in FY1998, $123 billion in FY1999 and $230 billion in FY2000 . In that same link, Clinton claimed that the national debt had been reduced by $360 billion in the last three years, presumably FY1998, FY1999, and FY2000--though, interestingly, $360 billion is not the sum of the alleged surpluses of the three years in question ($69B + $123B + $230B = $422B, not $360B).

While not defending the increase of the federal debt under President Bush, it is aggravating seeing Clinton's record promoted as having generated a surplus. It never happened. There was never a surplus and the cold hard facts support that position. In fact, far from a $360 billion reduction in the national debt in FY1998-FY2000, there was an increase of $281 billion.

Verifying this is as simple as accessing the U.S. Treasury website where the national debt is updated daily and a history of the debt since January 1993 can be obtained. Considering the government's fiscal year ends on the last day of September each year, and considering Clinton's budget proposal in 1993 took effect in October 1993 and concluded September 1994 (FY1994), here's the national debt at the end of each year of Clinton Budgets:

Fiscal

Year .....YearEnding... National Debt....... Deficit

FY1993 09/30/1993 $4.411488 trillion

FY1994 09/30/1994 $4.692749 trillion $281.26 billion

FY1995 09/29/1995 $4.973982 trillion $281.23 billion

FY1996 09/30/1996 $5.224810 trillion $250.83 billion

FY1997 09/30/1997 $5.413146 trillion $188.34 billion

FY1998 09/30/1998 $5.526193 trillion $113.05 billion

FY1999 09/30/1999 $5.656270 trillion $130.08 billion

FY2000 09/29/2000 $5.674178 trillion $17.91 billion

FY2001 09/28/2001 $5.807463 trillion $133.29 billion

As can clearly be seen, in no year did the national debt go down, nor did Clinton leave President Bush with a budget surplus that Bush subsequently turned into a deficit. Yes, the budget was almost balanced in FY2000 (ending in September 2000 with a deficit of "only" $17.9 billion), but it never reached zero--let alone a positive number. And Clinton's last budget proposal for FY2001, which ended in September 2001, generated a $133.29 billion deficit. The growing deficits started in the year of the last Clinton budget, not in the first year of the Bush administration.

Keep in mind that President Bush took office in January 2001 and his first budget took effect October 1, 2001 for the year ending September 30, 2002 (FY2002). So the $133.29 billion deficit in the year ending September 2001 was Clinton's. Granted, Bush supported a tax refund where taxpayers received checks in 2001. However, the total amount refunded to taxpayers was $38 billion . So even if we assume that $38 billion of the FY2001 deficit was due to Bush's tax refunds which were not part of Clinton's last budget, that still means that Clinton's last budget produced a deficit of 133.29 - 38 = $95.29 billion.

Clinton clearly did not achieve a surplus and he didn't leave President Bush with a surplus.

http://www.letxa.com/

Bills lack of focus enabled 9/11 to happen. Bush was handed that mess. You may not like they way he responded to it but the fact remains the attacks were planned and implimented on Bills watch.

Balanced budget? Give me a break. It was never balanced. And you seem to forget that Bush can't spend a dime. Congress does that. So if you have a problem point your finger that way.

My god are you grasping at some pathetic straws.

Don't like the truth eh? Those are the facts and you cannot ignore them. 9/11 was Bills fault. And now you want to give the country to his wife? Sounds like a really bad idea to me!

Gary, I cannot wait for your bubble to be burst. I will laugh for WEEKS, maybe months.

Yeah? And what will burst it? I would say your bubble will burst next year. I see you have your Clinton blinders on. Back from your self imposed political abstanace?

The Republican blinders Gary. You are a hypocrite, proven over & over today.

Hypocrite? Name calling are we? The last refuge of someone that cannot support their position or face the truth. Have at it.

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

(this is interesting....back to the original topic)

Most political observers know to stop reading when they see the phrase, “According to a poll from Zogby Interactive…” and yet, yesterday, I couldn’t believe the commotion caused by a poll that obviously didn’t make any sense.

About 24 hours ago, Zogby Interactive released a national poll showing John Edwards and Barack Obama leading each of the top five Republican presidential hopefuls in a hypothetical general-election match-up. The same poll, however, showed Hillary Clinton trailing the same five candidates (even Romney and Huckabee, who usually fare poorly due to low national name recognition). Reuters ran this report:

Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton trails five top Republican presidential contenders in general election match-ups, a drop in support from this summer, according to a poll released on Monday.

Clinton’s top Democratic rivals, Barack Obama and John Edwards, still lead Republicans in hypothetical match-ups ahead of the November 4, 2008, presidential election, the survey by Zogby Interactive showed.

As it turns out, this was just the tip of the iceberg. Blogs jumped on the poll results, as did all of the cable news networks.

Around the same time, Gallup released a similar poll, gauging the results of match-ups of the top two Dems against the top four Republicans. These results were in line with reality — Dems up, GOP down.

Take a wild guess which of these two polls sparked a mini media frenzy.

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/

Edited November 28, 2007 by Mister Fancypants

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Bubba didn't do anything to fix anything. All he did was get BJ's under the desk while the rest of the world spun on without him. I will take Bush any day over Clinton.

Those BJ's didn't kill a soul. Bush's wet-dream cost tens of thousands of lives. And we were afforded the first balanced budged in decades under Bubba. I'll take that over borrow and spend Bush any day of the week and twice on Sundays.

Bills lack of focus enabled 9/11 to happen. Bush was handed that mess. You may not like they way he responded to it but the fact remains the attacks were planned and implimented on Bills watch.

Balanced budget? Give me a break. It was never balanced. And you seem to forget that Bush can't spend a dime. Congress does that. So if you have a problem point your finger that way.

Busy re-writing history, are we? That wet-dream of Bush's that cost tens of thousands of mostly innocent lives had zippo, zero, nada, zilch, nil, not a first damn thing to do with 9/11 and you know it.

As for the budget, Clinton was the first President in decades to actually reduce national debt. Starting in FY 1998, the federal budget turned from red to black. In FY 1999, the federal budget had a surplus of 123 billion dollars. In FY 2000, that surplus grew to 230 billion. They turned off the national debt clock when Clinton was President. Remember? You can deny that all you want but it remains a fact: In the last years of the Clinton administration, the federal budgets had black bottom lines. Bush changed that right quick and had them turn that debt clock on again. You really gotta get out of that bubble, Gary.

I think you are re-writing history. Clinton never balanced the budget, and he never had a surplus.

I think not. Take it from the horse's (read: CBO) mouth:

Fiscal year 2001 ended with a total budget surplus of $127 billion. This marks the fifth consecutive year in which the federal government has run a surplus.

http://cbo.gov/ftpdocs/31xx/doc3152/Oct-MBR.pdf

But you keep reading that which you want to read rather than going to the source directly.

Edited November 28, 2007 by Mr. Big Dog

[GaryC 7]

Bubba didn't do anything to fix anything. All he did was get BJ's under the desk while the rest of the world spun on without him. I will take Bush any day over Clinton.

Those BJ's didn't kill a soul. Bush's wet-dream cost tens of thousands of lives. And we were afforded the first balanced budged in decades under Bubba. I'll take that over borrow and spend Bush any day of the week and twice on Sundays.

Bills lack of focus enabled 9/11 to happen. Bush was handed that mess. You may not like they way he responded to it but the fact remains the attacks were planned and implimented on Bills watch.

Balanced budget? Give me a break. It was never balanced. And you seem to forget that Bush can't spend a dime. Congress does that. So if you have a problem point your finger that way.

Busy re-writing history, are we? That wet-dream of Bush's that cost tens of thousands of mostly innocent lives had zippo, zero, nada, zilch, nil, not a first damn thing to do with 9/11 and you know it.

As for the budget, Clinton was the first President in decades to actually reduce national debt. Starting in FY 1998, the federal budget turned from red to black. In FY 1999, the federal budget had a surplus of 123 billion dollars. In FY 2000, that surplus grew to 230 billion. They turned off the national debt clock when Clinton was President. Remember? You can deny that all you want but it remains a fact: In the last years of the Clinton administration, the federal budgets had black bottom lines. Bush changed that right quick and had them turn that debt clock on again. You really gotta get out of that bubble, Gary.

I think you are re-writing history. Clinton never balanced the budget, and he never had a surplus.

I think not. Take it from the horse's (read: CBO) mouth:

Fiscal year 2001 ended with a total budget surplus of $127 billion. This marks the fifth consecutive year in which the federal government has run a surplus.

http://cbo.gov/ftpdocs/31xx/doc3152/Oct-MBR.pdf

But you keep reading that which you want to read rather than going to the source directly.

The story I cited came from treasury numbers. That is where the rubber meets the road.

[GaryC 7]

Election 2008: Clinton vs. Giuliani & Thompson

Clinton Trails Giuliani, Barely Leads Thompson

Friday, November 23, 2007

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey shows former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani ® enjoying a modest four-point lead of 46% to 42% over Senator Hillary Clinton (D) (see crosstabs). That’s the second time in the last three Rasmussen Reports election polls that Giuliani has held the advantage over Clinton.

The survey also found Clinton with a very slight edge over former Senator Fred Thompson ®, 46% to 44%. Both Republicans are doing better against Clinton than they did in the previous Rasmussen Reports survey.

The former First Lady has recently been the subject of more sustained and concerted attacks from other Democratic candidates seeking their party’s nomination. In addition to losing ground in the national match-ups with Giuliani and Thompson, Clinton now trails four Republican hopefuls in the pivotal state of Florida.

Since April, Giuliani has led Clinton several times in Rasmussen Reports national polling, but usually by no more than three percentage points. In mid-August he led by seven, but by September he was trailing. On October 9 Giuliani trailed Clinton 41% to 48%. In the next poll he managed to edge out Clinton by two points, but on November 11 he was again trailing, by six (see history).

Individual polls can sometimes overstate volatility in a race, especially when the results carry a four percentage point margin of sampling error. One way of addressing this is to look at a rolling-average of three consecutive polls. Using this approach, Clinton and Giuliani have both been within two points of the 45% mark for thirteen consecutive polls dating back to May 1, 2007. The candidates have been within two points of each other on eight of those thirteen surveys.

Currently, the three-poll rolling average shows Clinton and Giuliani tied at 45%. Clinton had held the advantage in the last four updates of the three-poll rolling average. At the beginning of the campaign, Giuliani had the advantage--during the first eight sets of three-poll averages, Giuliani was “ahead” in seven and tied with Clinton in the eighth.

It’s worth noting that on individual polls with a four point margin of sampling error, Giuliani has been within four points of the 45% mark for fifteen consecutive surveys dating back to March. Clinton has been within four points of the 45% mark on nineteen of twenty surveys dating back to December.

Thompson too can be thankful for the new Rasmussen Reports survey. Since we started surveying the match-up in March, the actor-politician has led Clinton only twice, and by the skin of his teeth. Clinton's greater leads have usually been modest, although on October 9 she led Thompson by fifteen points, 52% to 37%. On October 23 Thompson lagged by just two points, then fell six points behind in early November. Now he again trails by just two points.

A look at the three-poll rolling average for this match-up shows Clinton at 45% or 46% in the early match-ups moving up to the 48% to 50% range for the last four sets of results. Thompson started out at 44% or 45% for the first sets of data and has been in the 40% to 43% range more recently.

Currently, in the three poll rolling average, Clinton leads Thompson 47% to 43%. That’s an improvement for Thompson who trailed by an average of eight in the previous three polls.

http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content...uliani_thompson

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

Gary, if Hillary does become our next President (hypothetically), and doesn't turn this country into a Socialist State, will you concede that your judgment about her as being a Socialist was wrong?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Bubba didn't do anything to fix anything. All he did was get BJ's under the desk while the rest of the world spun on without him. I will take Bush any day over Clinton.

Those BJ's didn't kill a soul. Bush's wet-dream cost tens of thousands of lives. And we were afforded the first balanced budged in decades under Bubba. I'll take that over borrow and spend Bush any day of the week and twice on Sundays.

Bills lack of focus enabled 9/11 to happen. Bush was handed that mess. You may not like they way he responded to it but the fact remains the attacks were planned and implimented on Bills watch.

Balanced budget? Give me a break. It was never balanced. And you seem to forget that Bush can't spend a dime. Congress does that. So if you have a problem point your finger that way.

Busy re-writing history, are we? That wet-dream of Bush's that cost tens of thousands of mostly innocent lives had zippo, zero, nada, zilch, nil, not a first damn thing to do with 9/11 and you know it.

As for the budget, Clinton was the first President in decades to actually reduce national debt. Starting in FY 1998, the federal budget turned from red to black. In FY 1999, the federal budget had a surplus of 123 billion dollars. In FY 2000, that surplus grew to 230 billion. They turned off the national debt clock when Clinton was President. Remember? You can deny that all you want but it remains a fact: In the last years of the Clinton administration, the federal budgets had black bottom lines. Bush changed that right quick and had them turn that debt clock on again. You really gotta get out of that bubble, Gary.

I think you are re-writing history. Clinton never balanced the budget, and he never had a surplus.

I think not. Take it from the horse's (read: CBO) mouth:

Fiscal year 2001 ended with a total budget surplus of $127 billion. This marks the fifth consecutive year in which the federal government has run a surplus.

http://cbo.gov/ftpdocs/31xx/doc3152/Oct-MBR.pdf

But you keep reading that which you want to read rather than going to the source directly.

The story I cited came from treasury numbers. That is where the rubber meets the road.

I take the Congressional Budget Office over the edited publication of an anonymous web-site with an agenda (anti gay marriage, pro Iran military conflict, etc.) Whatever, Gary. As I said, you read and believe whatever floats your boat and I'll stick with plain information from direct sources such as the CBO (which is really where the rubber meets the road as it is firsthand information) and form my own opinion on that.

Edited November 28, 2007 by Mr. Big Dog

[GaryC 7]

Gary, if Hillary does become our next President (hypothetically), and doesn't turn this country into a Socialist State, will you concede that your judgment about her as being a Socialist was wrong?

Those are some mighty big if's. What she wants to do and what she can do are fortunatly 2 different things. But judging from her statements that she already made what she wants to do is clear. She wants to turn us into a socialist country.

Lets use her own words to show what I mean.

MANCHESTER, N.H. (AP) - Presidential hopeful Hillary Rodham Clinton outlined a broad economic vision Tuesday, saying it’s time to replace an “on your own” society with one based on shared responsibility and prosperity.

The Democratic senator said what the Bush administration touts as an “ownership society” really is an “on your own” society that has widened the gap between rich and poor.

“I prefer a ‘we’re all in it together’ society,” she said. “I believe our government can once again work for all Americans. It can promote the great American tradition of opportunity for all and special privileges for none.”

This sounds remarkably like...Karl Marx (from his Critique of the Gotha Programme, specifically):

In the higher phase of communist society, after the tyrannical; subordination of individuals, according to the division of labour, and and thereby also the distinction between mental and physical labour, has disappeared, after labour has become not merely a means to live but is in itself the first necessity of living, after the forces of production have also increased and all the springs of co-operative wealth are flowing more freely together with the all-round development of the individual, then and then only can the narrow bourgeois horizon of rights be left far behind and society will inscribe on its banner - “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.”

Edited November 28, 2007 by GaryC

[no name 1]

(this is interesting....back to the original topic)

Most political observers know to stop reading when they see the phrase, “According to a poll from Zogby Interactive…” and yet, yesterday, I couldn’t believe the commotion caused by a poll that obviously didn’t make any sense.

About 24 hours ago, Zogby Interactive released a national poll showing John Edwards and Barack Obama leading each of the top five Republican presidential hopefuls in a hypothetical general-election match-up. The same poll, however, showed Hillary Clinton trailing the same five candidates (even Romney and Huckabee, who usually fare poorly due to low national name recognition). Reuters ran this report:

Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton trails five top Republican presidential contenders in general election match-ups, a drop in support from this summer, according to a poll released on Monday.

Clinton’s top Democratic rivals, Barack Obama and John Edwards, still lead Republicans in hypothetical match-ups ahead of the November 4, 2008, presidential election, the survey by Zogby Interactive showed.

As it turns out, this was just the tip of the iceberg. Blogs jumped on the poll results, as did all of the cable news networks.

Around the same time, Gallup released a similar poll, gauging the results of match-ups of the top two Dems against the top four Republicans. These results were in line with reality — Dems up, GOP down.

Take a wild guess which of these two polls sparked a mini media frenzy.

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/