|
|
| Author |
Message |
tod
|
|
Ethernet Ethercutt
| 
Oct 17 18:57 UTC 2003 |
This item has been erased.
|
| 43 responses total. |
mcnally
|
|
response 1 of 43:
|
Oct 17 19:59 UTC 2003 |
Obviously Todd is part of the liberal media "filtering" conspiracy.
Bad Todd! Bad!
|
other
|
|
response 2 of 43:
|
Oct 17 21:18 UTC 2003 |
From the reports coming out these days, one might draw either of two
REASONABLE conclusions:
1) Wes Clark is about the last likely person we'd ever want to see
in the Oval Office.
2) The Republican machine has been very effective at using selected
military officers to give credence to a smear campaign against their most
threatening potential opponent in the 2004 election.
|
tod
|
|
response 3 of 43:
|
Oct 17 21:18 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
tsty
|
|
response 4 of 43:
|
Nov 4 07:13 UTC 2003 |
hell, wes clark for 2004 is simply a stooge-stalking horse for hillary 2008.
|
happyboy
|
|
response 5 of 43:
|
Nov 4 08:41 UTC 2003 |
really? how so?
|
tod
|
|
response 6 of 43:
|
Nov 4 18:24 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
tsty
|
|
response 7 of 43:
|
Nov 5 10:08 UTC 2003 |
clarks' staff, as reported, is clinton-redux ... just staying in tune
for hillary in 2008.
don't want to lose their 'touch' .... therefore, stallking horse.
|
scott
|
|
response 8 of 43:
|
Nov 5 14:08 UTC 2003 |
Wow. how delusional can people get? Still frothed up over Hillary...
|
aruba
|
|
response 9 of 43:
|
Nov 5 14:59 UTC 2003 |
Seriously. Move on.
|
happyboy
|
|
response 10 of 43:
|
Nov 5 19:27 UTC 2003 |
re7:
*hic*
|
goose
|
|
response 11 of 43:
|
Nov 6 03:57 UTC 2003 |
Yeah, tsty's incoherency is getting worse as far as I can tell.
|
tsty
|
|
response 12 of 43:
|
Nov 6 10:28 UTC 2003 |
pullback a little bit .. clark ahs zero-chance of being nominated.
however!!! hillary in 2008 does!
who is building the clark campaign? clintonista castoffs. keeping their
paws inteh process.
why?
hillary in 2008.
clark is a stooge.
|
goose
|
|
response 13 of 43:
|
Nov 6 13:55 UTC 2003 |
thank you, apart from a couple of easy to overlook spelling errors, that was
more coherent than some recent posts. Not that I agre with it, but it was
easier to follow.
|
gull
|
|
response 14 of 43:
|
Nov 6 15:12 UTC 2003 |
I don't really see how Clark running and not being nominated now helps
Hillary four years from now.
I could understand the argument when the theory was that Clark would step
aside at the last minute and Hillary would take his place in the primary
race. I still thought it was a silly conspiracy theory, but I could
understand the reasoning behind it.
Why *is* the right so obsessed with the Clintons, anyway?
|
jep
|
|
response 15 of 43:
|
Nov 6 15:59 UTC 2003 |
The Clintons ran the country for 8 years. The right doesn't want them
running it for another 4 or 8 years.
|
gull
|
|
response 16 of 43:
|
Nov 6 16:39 UTC 2003 |
That still doesn't explain the wacky conspiracy theories, or why, nearly
four years after Clinton has left power, right-wing talk show hosts still
vent about him at length.
|
jp2
|
|
response 17 of 43:
|
Nov 6 17:00 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
bru
|
|
response 18 of 43:
|
Nov 6 17:49 UTC 2003 |
You gotta remember, when Clinton started out, no one expected him to win
either. I mean, no one had heard of this nabob from arkansas, much less in
conection to his being nominated for president. But things happened and the
place holder the democrats put in to hasve a candidate ended up beating the
incumbent.
|
happyboy
|
|
response 19 of 43:
|
Nov 6 19:11 UTC 2003 |
i wouldn't be calling anyone a *nabob*, if i were you, goober.
|
tod
|
|
response 20 of 43:
|
Nov 6 19:31 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
happyboy
|
|
response 21 of 43:
|
Nov 6 19:48 UTC 2003 |
that's not a very nice thing to say about george bush
after all he did for his country when he was a hero in
the vietnam wa....oh wait.
|
tod
|
|
response 22 of 43:
|
Nov 6 19:54 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
tsty
|
|
response 23 of 43:
|
Nov 7 09:35 UTC 2003 |
prognostication ... 2008 - hillary/clark ticket. trust me.
caveat .. clark gets somehow snuffed in this cycle.
clark alwyas needs a leader; hillary always needs a follower.
americah needs neither, actually. (well, in teh exectuive office)
hillary, just as kennedy, can babble on in the senate where their
voices are heard and considered, fwiw, as 1/100 , *not* 1/1 power.
|
gull
|
|
response 24 of 43:
|
Nov 7 14:17 UTC 2003 |
I could maybe see a Hillary/Clark ticket in 2008 if Bush wins in 2004.
If there's a Democratic incumbant I really don't think they'd step aside
to let Hillary run. Besides, if Hillary runs I think she'll lose.
There are several reasons, but a big one is I don't think the public is
ready for a liberal female President. The first female President is
probably going to have to be a conservative.
|