!GOBAMA!

Well Duh!

Of course they want her to be the nominee. Why do you think wingnuts like Bruce always bring up national polls?

It is still too far out to tell who will be the nominees. Remember the last election? Howard Deen was running away with it. The dems usually choose late, and god willing they wont choose Hillary.

And to Bruce and John D - I know you guys want Hillary to win so you can run against her but try to think about it. What if she wins? What if she then goes on to win the General Election? Do you really want to have that harpy on your tv giving speaches for four long years?

Of course the Republicans want Mrs. Clinton to be the nominee. They realize that they have their best shot at winning in 2008 with her as the Democratic nominee; as she is truly a polarizing figure who can be demonized by the Roverians during a national election. Such a campaign will drive up turnout among the Republican base as well as those middle class and lower middle class "swing" voters who were misled and voted against their own economic interests in 2000 and 2004 - and could easily be misled again. Additionally, the Republicans have a considerable stockpile of ammunition to use against her - while they have far less to use against the other leading Democratic challengers - especially Obama.

Dodd subtly slaps Cinton?

I ironically correct Rand.

Beyond that I enigmatically dismiss Willard.

And I paradoxically condemn Huckabee.

Plus, I mysteriously win over John D, Bruce, and Paulo to the Liberal cause!

Blah, blah, blah.

Go Hillary!

There is a pervasive notion that Bush and Hillary Clinton are at odds, just as it was assumed that, during the 1992 election that George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton were mortal enemies. Neither case is true: the Clintons and Bushes have been allies, going back more than 20 years. Back then, while Reagan was still president, George Sr. helped bring cocaine into the U.S. and Bill provided a staging area and retro-fit facility in Nella, Arkansas. They are thick as theives. Well, they are theives, and Hillary and George are old pals.

Both the Clintons and the Bushes each represent long established ties to criminal activities, are members of the CFR (and other, similar, elitist organizations) and both families are socialist in their agenda.

Since Bush has been president, the ante has been upped: illegal immigration is at an all-time high, the dollar is weak, Mexican trucks are rolling into the heartland, the borders remain open, and the sovereignty of the U.S. continues to disintegrate. The SPP (security and prosperity partnership) entered into with Canada and Mexico is the staging area for the eventual North American Union which Hillary will no doubt implement when she takes the big chair at the White House.

This is all sad and nasty business. Worse, most of the top candidates are also CFR and have this agenda. This includes Giuliani, McCain, Romney, Edwards, Thompson, Biden, Dodd and Obama. There are only four "legitimate" (non-CFR) candidates running: Huckabee, Kucinich, Gravel and Ron Paul. Of these, only Paul has blasted the elitists for the North American Union, for allowing the borders to remain open, as well as our entering into NAFDA, GATT and other sovereignty-destroying alliances. Would he make a good president? I don't know. But I do believe that at least Ron Paul has integrity and the best interest of the U.S. at heart. Certainly far, far more than the Bushes and the Clintons.

"nisleib", I for one don't want Clinton or Obama or even Howard "Deen" (as you call him) to be the Dem nominee. Is that your method of attack--just put any words into people's mouths without asking them first what they actually believe? Why do you tell such lies, and will you apolgize?

If asked, I'd want Mike Gravel or Dennis Kucinich to be the Dem nominee. They're just as mentally unhinged as some of the people who post here, and as the nominee they'd drag the Dem Party down with them.

biff-bang-boom vote edwards