Comeback Kid, Take Two?

Hill is really like a leopard who can't change it's spots. She goes
bragging again about surviving the GOP attack on her for 16 years. Even that
number is part of her trademark exaggeration (GOP start attacking her only when
Hillarycare was launched and not 16 years to date). Or is she now telling us
that Bill and Hill are one and the same person ? In that case, let us drag back
Monica then ! How could an smart woman like her acts like a moron, or is it
that she thinks that the voters are stupid enough to believe her every word ?
Or perhaps she is so arithmetically too dumb to know how to count ? In that
case, the voters should just dump her now ! What she claimed as experience that
I can accept is that she has 16 years of waging battles with the GOP, but that
is not the kind of experience that the voters are looking for. The voters are
looking for a leader to lead a united country, not a divider like her !

71 % of Iowans rejected Sen Hillary Clinton

Edwards' supporters will not swing to Hillary

If there is one thing that sets Obama apart from the lying, sniveling, back-stabbing, back-tracking politicians, it's that he is JUST a politician. He is an American. I am not one to talk down about other people's views and opinions, but when criticism of others is so blatent and hypocritical, I feel I must say something. It may never amount to anything in the big picture, but at least someone had the nerve to step up and say it: Obama's lack of what Hillary's supporters call "experience" is the reason those of us who choose to support him feel so good about him; he has not been in the cesspool of Washington long enough to be corrupted. Maybe people need to take thier heads out of their backsides with their "holier than thou" "my candidate lived there and yours didn't" type of attitude and seriously consider what would be best for our country. I liked Bill as my president. But Hillary IS NOT BILL! So the fact that Obama has not had as much time in the Senate should NOT be a strike against him, we should instead embrace him as something new. Similar to the way the founding fathers embraced their opportunity to create a new country (which NONE OF THEM HAD DONE BEFORE), where everyone can be given an equal chance, where the public can speak, and where it is the norm to be openminded and interrested in other's views, since that is how improvements are made anyway. How can people criticize a man with dreams of a better country for starting early? This whole thing is getting so frustrating...it's rediculous.

Hill's campaign style for black voters is relying on getting top leaders'
endorsements who will then be expected to issue commands to their followers.
This is another proof that the Clintons are relying surrogates to to the heavy
lifting for them, unlike how Barack is doing it himself. Isn't it time for the
Clintons to do the dirty works themselves instead of relying on their loyal
surrogates to serve them like their masters. Bill even tried to tacitly bribe a
black Pastor with his red necktie to switch support from Barack but failed. The
Clintons are so desperate to really appear as the first choice of black voters
to create momentum in SC, but the fact is they are not, as Oprah have
effectively neutralized them.

McBush is old news.
status quo, only more out of date.
A loser in a CHANGE campaign.
Next story.

She keeps talking about experience, bull. It is like hiring someone to use a new machine. Do you hire the one who only knows about 'old' machines or do you hire the new kid who may not know that much but will learn?

Hill's conceding that Iowa was tough on her with excuses that others have
long been campaigning there belies the fact that she started plotting her
campaign ahead of Barack. Until she learned to consistently tell the whole
truth and not half-truth, majority of voters will not trust her. That is the
fact, but she refuses to admit that she is a congenital liar, and that will not
change in her lifetime. Let us see in NH then when that environment is supposed
to be her natural habitat where she could easily peddle her lies and
exaggerated claims and not get challenged.

The theme for this years campaign is CHANGE, stupid (not experience), and Hillary and the Republicans cannot deliver on this; they are part of the old Clinton/Reagan/Bush era that has led this county for the last 20 years. Politics, like baseball, is all about timing; and Obama has tapped into that desire for CHANGE, and is ready to hit it out of the ball park, AND NO ONE CAN STOP HIM!!!

Hill continue to tout her experience and decided to compete in Iowa despite internal polls that reveals her high negatives. She thought she could just roll over this negative by her bunker mentality. She was proven to be Wrong Again ! This will only exacerbate her negatives as her "experience" haven't been good enough lesson for her, with her continued wrong-headedness ! That is exactly the bunker mentality she and Bush shared and yet she keep on bashing Bush as if Bush is still going to run this year ! Is her Alzheimer catching up to her wrinkles too that she forgets who her opponents are in the primary ?
Despite with the biggest war chest, she can't establish a superb campaign machine that rivals Barack's machine that brought new voters in record numbers. This only goes to show that she is not as smart as people describe her added to the fact that she flunked the Bar exams twice ! Her smartness is apparently overrated subscribed by pygmies who were impressed by the size of a normal person.

What is Hillary's proven record? I believe she has a solid record as a lawyer and as a senator in NY. What are her other record highlights? I recall her being the first lady (not the president)...if marriage qualifies then let's bring out Barbara Bush. I recall Hillary failing miserably on the health care reform back in early/mid 90's...and she had the president's support on that one. So experience and record wise, I don't see her leaps and bounds above everybody else running.

You have an error in your piece. You wrote, "Iowa doesn't typically pick presidents, the Clinton camp reminded reporters; the winner of the state's caucuses hasn't gone on to the White House since 1976."

Of course, this is inaccurate. This is a case of the Clinton spin machine succeeding in lying to reports, who then buy the story hook-line-and-sinker. Here's the truth:

In 2004, Bush won the caucuses and the white house.
In 2000, Bush won the caucuses and the white house.
In 1996, Clinton won the caucuses and the white house.
In 1992, Harkin and Bush won, though Clinton won the white house.
In 1988, Gephardt and Dole won.
In 1984, Reagan won the caucuses and the white house.
In 1980, Bush won the caucuses.
In 1976, Carter won the caucuses and the white house.

So, in the last 8 election cycles, the winner of the Iowa Caucuses has gone onto win the white house five (5) times...not this nonsense that the Clinton people are spewing.

Please check your facts before reporting. This is shoddy workmanship.