Which Democrat Candidate Is The Most Clintonesque?

[Rightlane]

We're all debating which of our candidates is the most Reaganesque. But wouldn't it be fun to debate which Dem is the most Clintonesque! I suppose we first have to come up with a good definition of Clintonesque, a list of qualities that are characteristic of the man.

So let's make this a two-part question.

1. Define Clintonesque (for starters, corrupt, mendacious, deceitful, lacking leadership).

2. Discuss which of the current Dem candidates comes closest to fitting that description.


And the nominees are:

http://www.scsu.edu/img/editor/633120175984432895_candidates.jpg

[preservanation]

Hooo Boy.
Socialism vs America?
Tough choice.
Any one of these smarmy bastages will destroy this nation.
No doubt[hr]Edwards is the wost and it mystifies me that the Dems don't like him more.
He is bad for our nation
ergo, good for the libs.

[maineman]

runewtrun?

Oh PLEASE! That is my fondest dream. I think it would be absolutely woderful to see the hypocrisy of the republicans so completely exposed as they ran a serial adulterer who had sexed up his intern as their presidential candidate.

family values? ROFLMFAO!

[ECW]

I'm always curious to hear what some rightwinger has to say when he makes it clear in the title of his thread that he can't even get the name of the left leaning party correct.

In this case, I agree with Maineman: Newt is more Clintonesque than Bubba could ever hope to be.

[Rightlane]

http://img459.imageshack.us/img459/7530/powerhungryhillaryzv6.jpg

[Deadshot]

The little MacBeth thing you had for Clinton could be used for EVERYONE on BOTH sides of the aisle currently seeking the nomination.

Do you actually believe that there's a candidate out there that isn't "power hungry and deceitful?" Is anyone that naive?

To be deceitful is to be a Politician.

And why would you go for the most powerful office in the WORLD if you weren't "power hungry."

C'mon, Rightlane, turn off "Mr. Smith goes to Washington" and realize BOTH sides are deceitful and power hungry.

[ECW]

When you are in the right lane, you only see one side of the road.

[April15]

When you are in the right lane, you only see one side of the road.
What do you mean right lane? I use all the lanes and the shoulder if I need to. Does that mean I see all things?

[ECW]

Sounds correct to me...

I use the left lane for passing people up...

The slower ones...

In the right lane...

[April15]

As to the question of Clintonesqe? I find that to be more vritueous than rayguneasqe. Raygun took a fine country and made it a diving board for fascism. Clinton took a dieing nation and helped put life back into it. If not for the blockades put up by the conservatives in congress most of our domestic issues would not be issues today.

And as for the best candidate they will not run. That person would have to much virtue and pride to allow themself be degraded by political campaign smear jobs. Hence they won't run.

[PatrickHenry]

Funny question. Oughta be in the humor section, because your definition is not a universally accepted one...

By definition Mrs. Clinton is the most Clintonesque.

[Rightlane]

Clintonesque Edwards:

Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards is taking a page from Bill Clinton's playbook and building on it. He feels your pain – and your anger.

The upbeat Mr. Sunshine and Southern moderate of the 2004 presidential race has turned into the populist pursuing support from the party's liberal wing in hopes of overcoming leading rivals Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama. Edwards has given voice to voters' frustrations over an unending Iraq war, rising health care costs and disenchantment with Washington.

Anger can be a tricky emotion for a politician. In 2004, Howard Dean was known as the angry candidate and it proved to be part of his downfall.

"The electorate gets to be angry, but politicians typically should be more temperate," said Democratic strategist Jamal Simmons, who added that "there's a fine line between channeling anger and being angry."

Edwards is different from Dean, who had a tendency to get ticked off at times and pop off unexpectedly. Edwards is channeling his emotion in a more deliberate way.

Still, Edwards' impassioned outbursts also can backfire, especially when his own past words and deeds come back to haunt him.

In Tuesday's AFL-CIO debate, Edwards' voice rose as he pledged his solidarity with union workers, citing the 200 times he walked picket lines in the last two years and being with rank-and-file at "crunch time."

"That's the question you have to ask yourself. Who will stand with you when it really matters?" he asked.

Rival Joe Biden testily suggested Edwards was a Johnny-come-lately, who only embraced labor's cause recently for the political expediency of the presidential race.

"The question is, did you walk when it cost? Did you walk when you were from a state that is not a labor state?" Biden asked.

To make its point, the Biden campaign distributed a list of news stories from 1998, when Edwards ran for the Senate, showing that he supported a North Carolina law that prevented workers from being forced to join a union – an anti-union position.

"I think Senator Edwards, fairly or unfairly, has come across in this campaign to some as being less than authentic," said Andy Arnold, chairman of the Greenville, S.C., Democratic Party.

Last week, Edwards was vociferous in demanding that Clinton and other rivals refuse contributions from News Corp., owner of Fox News, which he labeled as biased against Democrats. A day later, News Corp. pointed out that Edwards has accepted hundreds of thousands of dollars for a book published by the corporation's HarperCollins. News Corp. asked whether Edwards would return his book advance; he said he gave the money to charity.

Faced with this reality, Edwards lashed back.

"They can continue to attack," the candidate snapped on CNN's "The Situation Room." "They will not silence me."

Edwards had a similarly intense response when campaigning in Iowa in late July. "I'm out there speaking up for universal health care, ending this war in Iraq, speaking up for the poor. They want to shut me up," he said without specifying who "they" are. "They will never silence me. Never."

In a recent telephone interview with The Associated Press, Edwards said he tries to express his outrage while offering solutions. "I am by nature optimistic," he said.

Edwards' solutions have come in more detailed and left-leaning policy proposals than his rivals. He was the first to offer a universal health care plan, and early on he called on Congress to vote against funding the war until troops come home.

"He's definitely leading and prodding the other Democratic candidates on a whole variety of issues," said Roger Hickey, co-director of the liberal Campaign for America's Future. "He really has been the candidate who has been out front, and all of the other candidates are trying to imitate it in one way or another and steal his constituency."

In a recent interview, Edwards said his outrage came into focus last month when he went on a three-day tour focused on poverty in the United States. As he frequently tells voters, he met a man named James Lowe who had lived for 50 years with a cleft pallet, unable to talk because he did not have health insurance and couldn't afford the simple operation to repair it.

"It made me mad," Edwards told an audience in South Carolina recently. "I mean, I was outraged. I think all of us should be outraged. This is just one of just millions of stories that I could feel inside of me. Enough is enough!"

Joe Trippi, who ran Dean's campaign and now is a senior adviser to Edwards, said anger may not have worked for his old boss but that Edwards is a different candidate running in a different time.

"Right now I think there are a lot of people who are really like John Edwards who believe Washington is really broken," Trippi said in a telephone interview. "It's not about whether you are angry or not, it's about are you expressing in an appropriate way when the rest of the country says, 'Yeah, I'm outraged about that, too.'"

http://www.theconservativevoice.com/ap/article.html?mi=D8QTP7S80&apc=9008

[Rightlane]

Clintonesque Hillary:

Hillary Clinton Nabbed for Suspicious Fundraising Practices, Again
Tom Fitton

“The travails of Mr. Hsu have proved an embarrassment for the Clinton campaign, which has strived to project an image of rectitude in its fund-raising and to dispel any lingering shadows of past episodes of tainted contributions,” The New York Times wrote. And what are some of those “lingering shadows?”

The former first lady masterminded the illegal sale of trade mission seats in exchange for campaign contributions during the Clinton years. Our work led to her 2000 Senate campaign fundraising operation being fined $35,000 for failing to accurately report more than $700,000 in donations from another donor who came out the blue to give big money to her and other Democrats. (Our work also led to the federal prosecution of David Rosen, her Senate campaign’s national finance director.) And, then you have the whole Chinagate mess, which saw Hillary, her husband, and Al Gore all benefiting from the largess of Chinese communist-connected and other nefarious donors who gave money to them through straw donors and Buddhist monks. In fact, our client Johnny Chung, who was embroiled in this scandal, met with a Chinese general who gave him money to help Bill Clinton get reelected! Mr. Chung’s key contacts were in then-First Lady Hillary Clinton’s White House office.

Who is the Clinton machine kidding? This latest scandal is par for the course and deserves a full criminal investigation. The Bush Justice Department, to date, has shied away from aggressively pursuing the Clintons. Let’s the hope the change in leadership at Justice marks a change of attitude in pursuing Clinton corruption. For our part, our investigators are already on it.

http://www.nationalledger.com/artman/publish/article_272615864.shtml

[ECW]

Another misleading neocon headline.

Hillary wasn't "nabbed" for anything. Hsu was but what are a few facts when you can beat the partisan drum, eh?

[nevadamedic]

We're all debating which of our candidates is the most Reaganesque. But wouldn't it be fun to debate which Dem is the most Clintonesque! I suppose we first have to come up with a good definition of Clintonesque, a list of qualities that are characteristic of the man.

So let's make this a two-part question.

1. Define Clintonesque (for starters, corrupt, mendacious, deceitful, lacking leadership).

2. Discuss which of the current Dem candidates comes closest to fitting that description.

You left out murdering.

And the nominees are:

http://www.scsu.edu/img/editor/633120175984432895_candidates.jpg

[Stoner]

Which Democrat Candidate Is The Most Clintonesque?


Well they're all liars, poor leaders and have horrible ideas....so they're all Clinton-esque.

[Elrathin]

Well they're all liars, poor leaders and have horrible ideas....so they're all Clinton-esque.


And I suppose you think all Republicans tell the truth right? :rolleyes:

[ECW]

If any of them really are "Clintonesque" that means they will get re-elected easily, have great poll numbers while Republicans wallow in the mud hoping some of it will stick to them, and bitch like Tanya Harding at an Ice Capades show when the economy booms for the entire eight years they are president.

And, no, El, Republicans are not bred to tell the truth. It's in their genes to lie. (Bobbylien is the exception from what I've seen here at DF...)

[preservanation]

Which Democrat Candidate Is The Most Clintonesque?


Well they're all liars, poor leaders and have horrible ideas....so they're all Clinton-esque.
It's a race to see who can tear down America the fastest while still maintaining their claim to be patriotic.
The law of diminishing returns will soon catch up to the Democrat party,
sooner rather than later.

[Rightlane]

It's Back To The 1990's (Is this 2007 or 1997?):

David Schippers: Clinton gang broke into my house, too
Impeachment chief counsel tells Kathleen Willey of similar attempt to steal copy of book manuscript

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=57556

Kathleen Willey: Clintons stole my manuscript
House burglary over weekend targeted copy of book days after details leaked to press

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=57498

FBI Investigates Democratic Fundraiser

WASHINGTON (AP) - The FBI is investigating whether Democratic fundraiser Norman Hsu paid so-called straw donors to send campaign contributions to presidential hopeful Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton and other candidates, a law enforcement official said Monday.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8RIRAUO1&show_article=1

[suedanim]

Which Democrat Candidate Is The Most Clintonesque?


Well they're all liars, poor leaders and have horrible ideas....so they're all Clinton-esque.
It's a race to see who can tear down America the fastest while still maintaining their claim to be patriotic.
The law of diminishing returns will soon catch up to the Democrat party,
sooner rather than later.


Oh... someone already won that race. George W. Bush

you're welcome! :love:

[Survivor]

Which Clinton?

[Rightlane]

It's Back To The 1990's (Is this 2007 or 1997?):

David Schippers: Clinton gang broke into my house, too
Impeachment chief counsel tells Kathleen Willey of similar attempt to steal copy of book manuscript

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=57556

Kathleen Willey: Clintons stole my manuscript
House burglary over weekend targeted copy of book days after details leaked to press

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=57498

FBI Investigates Democratic Fundraiser

WASHINGTON (AP) - The FBI is investigating whether Democratic fundraiser Norman Hsu paid so-called straw donors to send campaign contributions to presidential hopeful Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton and other candidates, a law enforcement official said Monday.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8RIRAUO1&show_article=1


perfect timing:

http://www.thkelly.net/Just%20Like%20Old%20Times%20p.jpg

[Rightlane]

Clinton to Return Hsu Money, But Wants it Back!

This is just so "Clintonesque":

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, whose campaign is returning $850,000 in contributions linked to disgraced fundraiser Norman Hsu, indicated Wednesday that donors who contributed that money could donate to her presidential campaign once again.

``We're not asking that that be done,'' she said in a teleconference with reporters. ``But I believe that the vast majority of those 200-plus donors are perfectly capable of making up their own minds about what they will or won't do going forward.''

Clinton's remarks were her first public comments on the affect Hsu's unraveling fortunes have had on her presidential campaign. Hsu was a leading money ``bundler'' for Clinton, earning the title of HillRaiser for his fundraising activities.

``It was very difficult for us to make any decision other than returning the contributions that were in any way connected to him and that is what we decided to do,'' she said.

Clinton's campaign said this week that any donors whose money was returned could donate once again if they confirm to the campaign that the contributions are from their own personal funds.

http://allthingsconservative.typepad.com/all_things_conservative/2007/09/clinton-to-retu.html

[maineman]

If a man walked up to me and indicated he was collecting money on behalf of a candidate or a party...and I agreed with that candidate or that party, I would certainly be inclined to donate.

If, later on, the man was shown to be unethical and the candidates and/or party returned my donation to me, I would not find it at all irregular or unexpected if the party and/or candidate would indicate that, if I still was interested in contributing, that I could still contribute to them directly.

This is a silly mountain out of a molehill issue.

Is this really the best you got?

[preservanation]

Which Democrat Candidate Is The Most Clintonesque?


Well they're all liars, poor leaders and have horrible ideas....so they're all Clinton-esque.
It's a race to see who can tear down America the fastest while still maintaining their claim to be patriotic.
The law of diminishing returns will soon catch up to the Democrat party,
sooner rather than later.


Oh... someone already won that race. George W. Bush

you're welcome! :love:
Oh, your a BIG help, suedanim!

I think Hillary is more ideologically dangerous than Bill.
If she had half of his charisma, I'd really be worried.
If she is nominated she will define "negative turnout" in the general election.

[Buck Laser]

Oh, your a BIG help, suedanim!

I think Hillary is more ideologically dangerous than Bill.
If she had half of his charisma, I'd really be worried.
If she is nominated she will define "negative turnout" in the general election.

It seems to me that the GOP Big Guys are actually scared shitless of Hillary--I've seen so many posts like this ever since 2004. If they weren't deathly afraid of her, they wouldn't be making all the noise. Of course, they treated Bill with the same respect. But it's funny how angry they become because a whole lot of us dislike and don't trust Bush. If we suggest that some of our anger might be because of how they treated Bill, then they go into denial.

If by Clintonesque, you refer to his charisma, then Obama is the hands-down leader in that department. Speak of analytical intelligence, and Senator Clinton is the leader. Kucinich has ideas and proposals that could turn this nation into best neighbor and real world leader again. Edwards has real fire for doing something about poverty. I don't think "Clintonesque" is gonna be the critical adjective for the democrats: it will more likely be Kennedyesque
, and my guy Obama has got it.

[Rightlane]

John Edwards = Another Slick Willy

September 01, 2007

Edwards, as a one term senator from NC who couldn't win re-election, is just as unprepared to serve as commander-in-chief as the other two idiots but there is one critical difference. EDWARDS IS SLICK ENOUGH TO HIDE IT!! From the first moment I laid eyes on John Edwards in 2003, he scared the living "dog-squeeze" out of me for one singular reason: he reminded me of Bill Clinton to a tee! The guy has the skills to deceive and with the right team of "spin-meisters", he can woo the dunderheads right out from under Hillary and Osama Obama's political tent. Perhaps you doubt my logic here, well let me ask you a question. While working as a trial lawyer, how did Edwards win one multi-million dollar settlement after another with apparent ease? The answer is that he was able to persuade jurors who are only marginally smarter than Democrat voters. If he was able to pull it off so many times in the past, what's to stop him from pulling it off one more time?

http://meatandpotatoesblog.townhall.com/g/2b963396-00e0-4af8-ba90-91ab9f80329a

[Rightlane]

Slick Hillary On Fox News Sunday

http://www.divisivehillary.com/image/hillary_animated_small.gif

From her opening cackle, where she channeled Margaret Hamilton perfectly, to her closing cackle (both over questions or remarks that simply weren’t funny!)Hillary showed herself to be a typically slick politician.

It wasn’t Chris Wallace’s finest interview, but to be fair, his questions served as mere punctuation marks to the campaign speech she’d planned on giving regardless of the questions.

By my count, he asked her at least three point blank questions that she would not answer...one of them, “Will you repudiate the MoveOn.org Gen Betrayus ad?” he asked twice!

Do not expect a plain spoken President if HDRMC is elected. “Yes” and “No” to simple questions are not in her vocabulary! She danced, she bobbed, she weaved..."she was for the ad before she was against the ad” according to one of the panelists after. She came out against questioning the patriot of any and every American, yet couldn’t explain why she voted against the Senate resolution condemning this particular ad of this particular American!

On health care, Wallace asked if the projected savings in her program did not materialize, would she raise taxes or cut back the program? Snowball’s chance in hell getting that one answered! She launched out on a speech glorifying Hillarycare!

BTW, expect a government mandate that everyone has health insurance. If you’re 18 and bulletproof, Hillary will make you purchase health insurance as “shared responsibility” to offset the cost of insurance to those who really need it. Hillary will let you have every choice! Except the choice not to buy it!

He asked her about Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad speaking at Columbia University. She was adamant that Ahmadinejad not be allowed at Ground Zero (a place he’s NOT going) but when asked her opinion about Columbia, a place where he IS going, all of the sudden, she had no opinion...it was “up to Columbia!” In other words, she was against Ahmadinejad before she was for him!

If you want a chance to see Shrillary at her calculating best, this is the interview to see.

http://www.sayanythingblog.com/readers/entry/slick_hillary_on_fox_news_sunday


http://www.realclearpolitics.com/blog/hillary.gif

[namguy]

We're all debating which of our candidates is the most Reaganesque. But wouldn't it be fun to debate which Dem is the most Clintonesque! I suppose we first have to come up with a good definition of Clintonesque, a list of qualities that are characteristic of the man.

So let's make this a two-part question.

1. Define Clintonesque (for starters, corrupt, mendacious, deceitful, lacking leadership).

2. Discuss which of the current Dem candidates comes closest to fitting that description.

GOOD FOR YOU, you've just described 'Lil bush:madlaugh:and 'his gang'


And the nominees are:

http://www.scsu.edu/img/editor/633120175984432895_candidates.jpg
[hr]
We're all debating which of our candidates is the most Reaganesque. But wouldn't it be fun to debate which Dem is the most Clintonesque! I suppose we first have to come up with a good definition of Clintonesque, a list of qualities that are characteristic of the man.

So let's make this a two-part question.

1. Define Clintonesque (for starters, corrupt, mendacious, deceitful, lacking leadership).

2. Discuss which of the current Dem candidates comes closest to fitting that description.


And the nominees are:

http://www.scsu.edu/img/editor/633120175984432895_candidates.jpg

Popularity down to 10%:ecstatic::ecstatic::ecstatic:

[hr]
We're all debating which of our candidates is the most Reaganesque. But wouldn't it be fun to debate which Dem is the most Clintonesque! I suppose we first have to come up with a good definition of Clintonesque, a list of qualities that are characteristic of the man.

So let's make this a two-part question.

1. Define Clintonesque (for starters, corrupt, mendacious, deceitful, lacking leadership).

2. Discuss which of the current Dem candidates comes closest to fitting that description.


And the nominees are:

http://www.scsu.edu/img/editor/633120175984432895_candidates.jpg

Popularity down to 10%:ecstatic::ecstatic::ecstatic:

[hr]
As to the question of Clintonesqe? I find that to be more vritueous than rayguneasqe. Raygun took a fine country and made it a diving board for fascism. Clinton took a dieing nation and helped put life back into it. If not for the blockades put up by the conservatives in congress most of our domestic issues would not be issues today.

And as for the best candidate they will not run. That person would have to much virtue and pride to allow themself be degraded by political campaign smear jobs. Hence they won't run.


Here's a good question, and I'll vote for anyone that can do just this; who, man or woman candadate can bring the National Debt down?? That should really be issue here....the repbs don't seem to care about that and THAT is of most importance.

[Rightlane]

Hillary and Bill's true colors unfold on Fox News
By Dick Morris and Eileen McGann
Monday, October 1, 2007

Amazingly, they (the Clintons) seem to genuinely believe that they are still the targets of a “vast right-wing conspiracy” and that they are alone and under attack despite their manifest virtue and singular desire to do good.

Hillary’s handlers have taken great pains to teach her the art of concealment, hiding her raw partisanship behind a smile and, when necessary, even a forced laugh. A laugh that’s often too long and too loud.

It’s part of the Hillary defense. Just as Hillary’s answers are scripted, so is her "spontaneous" laughter. This is truly learned behavior — laughing — or pretending to laugh at will. Over the past 15 years, she’s perfected the art of responding to people, questions and networks that she doesn’t like. In the past, she would sneer and answer sarcastically, as in, “Maybe I should have stayed home and baked cookies.” But those days are over. Now she smiles constantly and dissolves into a flood of loud giggles. It’s been a big part of her media training.

http://townhall.com/columnists/DickMorrisandEileenMcGann/2007/10/01/hillary_and_bills_true_colors_unfold_on_fox_news

[namguy]

:madlaugh:
Hillary and Bill's true colors unfold on Fox News
By Dick Morris and Eileen McGann
Monday, October 1, 2007

Amazingly, they (the Clintons) seem to genuinely believe that they are still the targets of a “vast right-wing conspiracy” and that they are alone and under attack despite their manifest virtue and singular desire to do good.

Hillary’s handlers have taken great pains to teach her the art of concealment, hiding her raw partisanship behind a smile and, when necessary, even a forced laugh. A laugh that’s often too long and too loud.

It’s part of the Hillary defense. Just as Hillary’s answers are scripted, so is her "spontaneous" laughter. This is truly learned behavior — laughing — or pretending to laugh at will. Over the past 15 years, she’s perfected the art of responding to people, questions and networks that she doesn’t like. In the past, she would sneer and answer sarcastically, as in, “Maybe I should have stayed home and baked cookies.” But those days are over. Now she smiles constantly and dissolves into a flood of loud giggles. It’s been a big part of her media training.

http://townhall.com/columnists/DickMorrisandEileenMcGann/2007/10/01/hillary_and_bills_true_colors_unfold_on_fox_news


Look, let's talk about the trouble at hand here...gettin rid of bush, the rest of it for the moment is bs. Short and simple.

[Elrathin]

I don't care for Hillary, but I sure do enjoy seeing her be the rightwings Boogyman lol.

The fear coming from Republicans is so funny. I can see it now after the GOP Primaries, their slogan will be "Anyone but Hillary". Gee that sounds familiar LOL.

[potter]

I noticed the other day that the media is now trying to demonize Hillaries laugh and are comparing it to Deans scream. I suppose if you cannot argue her politics personal attacks are all you have.

I'm sorry, I can't handle politics any more. With so many issues that need addressing by our government, following politics is like watching a bunch of pre-schoolers nyaaa nyaaa nyaa at each other. I suppose it keeps the idiots who vote for them occupied so they forget that there are REAL issues out there that need to be addressed...decade after decade...

Why not go for her ass....let's talk about how big her ass is. She cannot lead the country because her ass is too big. That's every bit of a ligitimate political argument as her laugh.

[namguy]

I noticed the other day that the media is now trying to demonize Hillaries laugh and are comparing it to Deans scream. I suppose if you cannot argue her politics personal attacks are all you have.

I'm sorry, I can't handle politics any more. With so many issues that need addressing by our government, following politics is like watching a bunch of pre-schoolers nyaaa nyaaa nyaa at each other. I suppose it keeps the idiots who vote for them occupied so they forget that there are REAL issues out there that need to be addressed...decade after decade...

Why not go for her ass....let's talk about how big her ass is. She cannot lead the country because her ass is too big. That's every bit of a ligitimate political argument as her laugh.



Ha, ha, ha...good one:clapper:her big ass hah, ha, ha...

[Marley]

I strongly disagree.

It's like playing poker. Poker isn't about the cards or odds or luck, it's about reading the other player's hands by reading the other players.

The Laugh is the telltale to that. It's forced, it's a preplanned response to a certain cue, and it lets decision makers (voters) better read the candidate.

Which makes it a perfectly, absolutely legitimate political topic!

And Dick Morris' column today did a good job examining The Laugh.

[namguy]

I don't care for Hillary, but I sure do enjoy seeing her be the rightwings Boogyman lol.

The fear coming from Republicans is so funny. I can see it now after the GOP Primaries, their slogan will be "Anyone but Hillary". Gee that sounds familiar LOL.


Well, I don't totally disagree with you, but everyone keeps dodging my question. WHO, WHICH CANDIDATE WILL CONCENTRATE ON BRINGING DOWN THE NATIONAL DEBT:question:AND JUST HOW WILL THEY, HE OR SHE DO THAT:question:This should be the top concern on the up coming elections:help:The Rep's won't:unreal:

[Marley]

WHO, WHICH CANDIDATE WILL CONCENTRATE ON BRINGING DOWN THE NATIONAL DEBT

None of them.

JUST HOW WILL THEY, HE OR SHE DO THAT

N/A they won't.






Question:

Without national debt, what is a citizen supposed to invest in when saving their earnings (after taxes) to provide for themselves and their loved ones?

Enron stock?

Bill Clinton never paid down a dime of the national debt. Why would his wife or any of his party's candidates?

[potter]

I strongly disagree.

It's like playing poker. Poker isn't about the cards or odds or luck, it's about reading the other player's hands by reading the other players.

The Laugh is the telltale to that. It's forced, it's a preplanned response to a certain cue, and it lets decision makers (voters) better read the candidate.

Which makes it a perfectly, absolutely legitimate political topic!

And Dick Morris' column today did a good job examining The Laugh.



Just so long as we don't spend too much time examining the real issues...that affect us all...like running a country.

[Marley]

Huh?

I'm talking about accurately assessing the candidate for "running the country."

The language of truth is body language, only the best of the best liars can lie in body language. Hillary can't lie as well as her husband.

IMO Slick is an extraordinary student of body language. When you see Slick, you're seeing an ACTOR emulating a composite character role with strong doses of Elvis and Reagan.

It was reported in the Maimi Herald, in January 1993, that Slick was observed in a DC TV studio the night of Reagan's reelection playing video of Reagan over and over and over, aping Reagan's EVERY nuance of body language. I'll never forget that column. KNOWING the truth about Slick, watch any video of him and it's transparently clear he's done the same with Elvis, down to the lip biting.

Slick is just utterly amazing, Hillary simply lacks the raw talent. Being the power behind the throne was her peak, she's over reaching now, and doomed for failure. It ain't gonna be pretty when that failure occurs.

[namguy]

WHO, WHICH CANDIDATE WILL CONCENTRATE ON BRINGING DOWN THE NATIONAL DEBT

None of them.

JUST HOW WILL THEY, HE OR SHE DO THAT

N/A they won't.

What Clinton did is history, forget him, he's gone. My question remains un answered.






Question:

Without national debt, what is a citizen supposed to invest in when saving their earnings (after taxes) to provide for themselves and their loved ones?

Enron stock?

Bill Clinton never paid down a dime of the national debt. Why would his wife or any of his party's candidates?


Clinton brought the National Debt WAY down...short minded. Along came Bush and broke the country. My goodness it's as plain as black & white.[hr]

WHO, WHICH CANDIDATE WILL CONCENTRATE ON BRINGING DOWN THE NATIONAL DEBT

None of them.

JUST HOW WILL THEY, HE OR SHE DO THAT

N/A they won't.

What Clinton did is history, forget him, he's gone. My question remains un answered.






Question:

Without national debt, what is a citizen supposed to invest in when saving their earnings (after taxes) to provide for themselves and their loved ones?

Enron stock?

Bill Clinton never paid down a dime of the national debt. Why would his wife or any of his party's candidates?


Wait...the TAXES are on their way:clapper:

Clinton brought the National Debt WAY down...short minded. Along came Bush and broke the country. My goodness it's as plain as black & white.

[Marley]

Clinton brought the National Debt WAY down

LOL Sorry, that's just not true!

01/04/1993: $4,167,872,986,583.67

01/04/2000: $5,758,316,426,486.15

:embarrased:

Source:

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/NPGateway

Doesn't get any more credible than the debtor themself!

Gee, you only missed by one and half trillion dollars!!! LMAO

[namguy]

Clinton brought the National Debt WAY down

LOL Sorry, that's just not true!

01/04/1993: $4,167,872,986,583.67

01/04/2000: $5,758,316,426,486.15

:embarrased:

Source:

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/NPGateway

Not so punk, stop and look back:ecstatic:

Doesn't get any more credible than the debtor themself!

Gee, you only missed by one and half trillion dollars!!! LMAO
[hr]
Clinton brought the National Debt WAY down

LOL Sorry, that's just not true!

01/04/1993: $4,167,872,986,583.67

01/04/2000: $5,758,316,426,486.15

:embarrased:

Source:

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/NPGateway

I checked out that web site, printed it so I could use it as tollet paper:ecstatic: Say what you will but 'your boy' has broke this country:madlaugh:

Doesn't get any more credible than the debtor themself!

Gee, you only missed by one and half trillion dollars!!! LMAO