Comments on: Rasmussen Reports: Hillary Fares Better Against McCain

By: Darryl

Darryl — Thu, 17 Jul 2008 20:30:29 +0000

I actually think that Obama is going to elect a very religous conservative judge. Just you watch.

By: Has The New Car Smell Worn Off? : NO QUARTER

Has The New Car Smell Worn Off? : NO QUARTER — Thu, 17 Jul 2008 20:05:30 +0000

[...] Rasmussen Reports: Hillary Fares Better Against McCain [...]

By: AX10

AX10 — Thu, 17 Jul 2008 00:31:19 +0000

Cavuto did not call her that.
He spoke poorly when trying to explain how her opponents view her.
If anyone should be fired, it should be Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews.

By: Linda C.

Linda C. — Thu, 17 Jul 2008 00:26:37 +0000

Exactly. Hillary was going to get republican women voters. That was going to be her draw.

Obama was going to go after those “conservative right wing church” folk because Brazile thought Obama could “get them”. I guess she should have attended a Trinity UCC service or two before she thought up that brain fart.

By: AX10

AX10 — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 23:57:07 +0000

I agree. I am sick of hearing about how
everyone must bow down to this empty suit Obama.
Most of the AA’s will vote for Hillary if she
gets the nomination in August. Some will not,
but there will be more than enough of other groups to offset them as well as the nutroots activists.
Hillary can bring together a true winning coallition. Obama CANNOT!

By: AX10

AX10 — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 23:41:35 +0000

True. McCain is following Hillary’s lead on how to win over the moderates.
Also, count Rev. Wright have a third party release damaging info on Obama in the fall in order to get back at him for throwing him under the bus?!?

By: Linda C.

Linda C. — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 22:55:12 +0000

The condition on the ground changed 4 or 5 months ago when his foreign policy advisor told the BBC that Obama wasn’t never counting on his primary campaign plan. So conditions didn’t change. Obama lied in much the same way that “conditions” on the ground changed for FISA and NAFTA.

By: Linda C.

Linda C. — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 22:40:49 +0000

assumptions assumptions. One can finagle numbers to whatever ones’ amusing. Go ahead beleive 10 percent if it makes you feel better.

By: Hope Floats

Hope Floats — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 19:12:12 +0000

I’m just remembering how many high-ranking military officers endorsed Hillary Clinton for CIC as opposed to Obama. Now the presumptive nominee is giving a speech on national security. To counter that, eleven retired military officers published a letter of endorsement for McCain today…

As retired military officers, we share a natural hesitancy to engage actively in politics. There is a healthy discomfort in our profession with any political involvement because the country rightly depends on our military to support any commander in chief with our best military advice and our actions. But two factors compel us to speak out now and openly support John McCain for President: first, the surprising and inaccurate questioning of his record by some of Senator Obama’s leading supporters; and second, the importance to our national security of winning the war we are fighting.

The United States is confronted by many threats to its security and prosperity. Most significantly, we are engaged in a broad conflict with Islamic extremism against enemies espousing the same radical and violent ideology whose full dimensions the American people first glimpsed on September 11, 2001. Success in this war will require not only victory in the “hot” conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, but as well a balanced and integrated application of all elements of America’s national power as we work with our allies around the world to marginalize radicals and build a shared vision for peace with moderate Islam.

We are privileged to have had the opportunity to serve this country in uniform for most of our adult lives. We have had the honor of commanding young Americans of the same caliber and tenacity as those who today remain on the front lines, willingly sacrificing their own well-being and security and offering their lives in order to preserve our freedom. They deserve, and the American people demand, leadership of proven character—leadership that will always put America’s interests ahead of personal gain and political party.

It is our experience as former senior military officers that also gives us great concern about certain foreign policy positions staked out by Senator Obama. We are acutely aware that ill-conceived policies will have serious, if not tragic, consequences for military commanders, the troops they lead, and the nation. We are particularly concerned about his public statements, including his call for a withdrawal from Iraq, unconditional talks with the leaders of rogue states, and the return to a law-enforcement approach to protecting our country from terrorists.

This country has learned the peril of treating terrorists and their state sponsors as little more than a law enforcement problem. We are unanimous in our view that the failures of the past should not be repeated, and we believe that John McCain’s long record of national service, and his demonstrated judgment on matters of national security, make clear who can best defend this country abroad, and assure peace and prosperity at home.

Through a lifetime of service in uniform and in Congress, John McCain has consistently displayed the wisdom and courage to do the right thing for America regardless of the cost to him personally. It is for this reason, above all others, that we endorse John McCain for President, and it is for this reason that we stand with him now as he continues his long history of service to this country.

JAMES B. DAVIS, GENERAL, USAF (RET.)
RONALD J. HAYS, ADMIRAL, USN (RET)
JAMES L. HOLLOWAY, ADMIRAL, USN (RET)
JEROME L. JOHNSON, ADMIRAL, USN, (RET)
P.X. KELLEY, GENERAL, USMC, (RET)
JAMES J. LINDSAY, GENERAL, USA (RET)
JOHN MICHAEL LOH, GENERAL, USAF, (RET)
LEIGHTON W. SMITH, ADMIRAL, USN (RET)
CARL STINER, GENERAL, USA (RET)
DONALD C. “DEESE” THOMPSON, VICE ADMIRAL, USCG, (RET)
HOWARD B. THORSEN, VICE ADMIRAL, USCG, (RET)

By: Raven

Raven — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 18:34:36 +0000

Precisely, they will call it a move to steal the nomination, which is why we need “political histori-
ans” to be out in the MSM addressing this issue.
Engaging those who support Obama in debate NOW; taking the time to educate the young people, espe-
cially, about the convention process.
It is unfortunate, that some Obama surrogates and
supporters over past few months rather than take the
high road, would choose to intimate “upheaval” if
anything other than a coronation were to happen at
the convention. I find that outrageous! This is our
country, our presidency, at stake.
We as citizens of this great democracy cannot have
the notion, “Barack”s word”, or fear of “mob rule”,
decide our party nominee!

By: Dan R.

Dan R. — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 17:22:19 +0000

Yeah, I guess that’s why blacks went overwhelmingly for Obama in the primaries right?

Doug Wilder has it absolutely right. If black Democrats perceivee the nomination as having been stolen from Obama at this late date, they will not only tear the Democratic Party in two, but 95% of them would stay home on Election Day.

Hillary lost. It’s in the books.

Get over it.

By: Dan R.

Dan R. — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 17:17:57 +0000

ROTFLMAO!!! Barack Obama? A “centrist to right winger”? Are we talking about the same Barack Obama here? The same Barack Obama who was rated as THE single most liberal US Senator, even to the left of Barbara Boxer and Ted Kennedy?

You’re obviously a clueless idiot. Seriously, I strongly suggest you pull your head out of your ass.

By: Dan R.

Dan R. — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 17:13:56 +0000

No, not domestic terrorism. But you’d see a VERY nasty floor fight at the convention … all captured on national TV … probably a few actual fist-fights on the convention floor, lots of hateful invective spewed by both sides in front of the TV cameras, and rioting in the streets of Denver.

By: Hope Floats

Hope Floats — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 17:12:48 +0000

That should tell you Obama is as bad if not worse than Bush. I didn’t freak out too much when he said the DNC would be moved to Chicago. But now it’s a witch hunt against those who didn’t support him or soon enough for his liking. He has funds set aside to run Dems out of office. That’s so creepy and Machiavellian.

By: DancingOpossum

DancingOpossum — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 17:09:43 +0000

Absolutely, Raven. Putting HRC’s name on the nominating ballot–the ACTUAL nominating ballot, not a ceremonial roll call which is what they will try to fob off on us–is not up to Obama, Pelosi, or anybody else. It is in the RULES and bylaws, yes those same rules and bylaws the DNC used and abused (actually, completely and deliberately misinterpreted) to justify their disenfranchisement and vote theft. If they get away with this it will be unprecedented and appalling. That’s why we should all support the work the Denver Group is doing, they are focused on PRECISELY this issue. No more changing the rules and breaking with bylaws just to help BO! No more, no way!

When the DNC assures us that “her name will be on the ballot,” they are being too cute by half. She has to be on the actual nominating ballot.

Nobody has won the nomination yet so the nomination would not be “taken away” from Sensator Obama.

While this is 100% correct, I think it’s too late. If the SuperD’s by some miracle elect Hillary, the party, the media, and the OFB will paint it as a stolen nomination.