[JohnSnownw]

The Democrat candidates would love to take her on but they are afraid of the 1000 lb. gorilla in the room . They know in the unlikely event that they win the nomination that they will need the Clinton machine to win the general election . So they dare not take swipes at her. Instead both Obama and Edwards have sent their wives out to do the dirty work.

We have already posted on the illegal fundraising being done for Hillary and it's possible link to foreign money. Norman Hsu tried to become a fugitive but he became ill in flight on the California Zephyr and was taken to a hospital in Colorado . He skipped town even though that meant forfeiture of a $2million bond that someone posted on his behalf.

Not that important, but I believe Hsu became sick on an Amtrak train. I believe Obama and Clinton have given the money back that they received through him.

Kathleen Willey, the woman who says Bill Clinton groped her in the Oval Office, claims she her house was burglarized over the weekend .Her purse was stolen as well as a manuscript for her upcoming book “Target: Caught in the Crosshairs of Bill and Hillary Clinton”, which promises revelations that could damage Evita's campaign.

Ehh, I don't see that having much influence on the election. Bill's reputation has already been damaged in that category, so it's an easy stab. Because of this, I don't think it will be taken very seriously. I also have my doubts that the Clinton campaign would be stupid enough to do something as obvious as breaking into her house.

[tomder55]

John ;In flight was in the context of being a fugitive . I am aware the Zephyr is an Amtrack route.

The fundraising fits a pattern that went back to the 2nd Bill Clinton camaign and was repeated in the 1st Hillary for Senate run. She is still under investigation for that .

The Willey book is only relevant in that it congers up the worst images of the Clinton legacy . I'm sure the Clinton machine is already working overtime to discredit this former devoted Clinton follower.

[JohnSnownw]

John ;In flight was in the context of being a fugitive . I am aware the Zephyr is an Amtrack route.

Ahh, I see that now. What happens when I read through things too fast.

The fundraising fits a pattern that went back to the 2nd Bill Clinton camaign and was repeated in the 1st Hillary for Senate run. She is still under investigation for that .

Fair enough. I could see how that would at least tarnish her reputation, even though it's hard to believe it will amount to any charges being brought against her.

The Willey book is only relevent in that it congers up the worst images of the Clinton legacy . I'm sure the Clinton machine is already working overtime to discredit this former devoted Clinton follower.

Okay, but I will have to claim ignorance with regard to this person. Does she have credibility?

[ETWolverine]

John, I got to disagree with you. Rudy and Hillary are consistently neck and neck in the polls, with Rudy winning more often than Hillary. He would carry NY, NJ, CT, at the very least in the Northeast, and he would carry most of Middle American and much of the South, which tend to vote Republican/Conservative. He would probably lose CA, but then again, ANY Republican would likely lose CA. FL is Rudy Country, since many Floridians are NY transplants. OH, which tends to be an indicator of the USA as a whole because the demographics match those of the country as a whole, seems to be behind Rudy in most polls. Rudy has an excellent chance.

As far as Fred Thompson is concerned, I happen to be a little pissed at him over how long he waited to officially announce, and the fact that he avoided the Republican debate. I would have liked to see him participate in the debate and put out some really good sound-bytes that the press could chomp on. But the fact is that he is second in Republican polls, led only by Rudy. He's fourth overall, after Hillary, Rudy and Obama. And that was before he even officially announced that he's running. To say that he won't be a factor in the race is to ignore the fact that he's ALREADY a factor.

Elliot

[JohnSnownw]

John, I gotta disagree with you. Rudy and Hillary are consistantly neck and neck in the polls, with Rudy winning more often than Hillary. He would carry NY, NJ, CT, at the very least in the Northeast, and he would carry most of Middle American and much of the South, which tend to vote Republican/Conservative. He would probably lose CA, but then again, ANY Republican would likely lose CA. FL is Rudy Country, since many Floridians are NY transplants. OH, which tends to be an indicator of the USA as a whole because the demographics match those of the country as a whole, seems to be behind Rudy in most polls. Rudy has an excellent chance.

As far as Fred Thompson is concerned, I happen to be a little pissed at him over how long he waited to officially announce, and the fact that he avoided the Republican debate. I would have liked to see him participate in the debate and put out some really good sound-bytes that the press could chomp on. But the fact is that he is second in Republican polls, led only by Rudy. He's fourth overall, after Hillary, Rudy and Obama. And that was before he even officially announced that he's running. To say that he won't be a factor in the race is to ignore the fact that he's ALREADY a factor.

Elliot

I feel that the Northeast will vote Democrat, regardless of his current poll popularity. The Northeast voted for the Democrats in the 2004 election, and the 2006 congressional elections. I think it will do the same in 2008, regardless of his moderate position. For the most part, due to his stance in issues that polarize voters.

I'll concede to you on Fred Thomspon, but I think this is a momentary popularity. But, we'll have to wait few months to see who is correct.

[tomder55]

Re Kathleen Willey

Does she have credibility?

This is what I know. She was working as a volunteer for the Clinton White House . She claims that in 1993 Clinton cornered her in a private study next to the Oval Office ;kissed and groped her and grabbed her hand placing it on his crotch . She disclosed this publicly in a 60 minutes interview. She also testified during the Paula Jones trial .

Linda Tripp(who was herself smeared by the Clintons) has countered that Willey was flirtatious and that she encouraged the President's attentions. But ; let's say that Tripp's account is the more accurate one. All that changes is that the President in this case was not a predator .He was just on the make while on the job. Also this story also fits a pattern involving various women and Bill Clinton.

In one case ; Juanita Broaddrick (aka Jane Doe #5 in the Paula Jones trial ) ,claimed that she was raped by Bill Clinton in 1978 . During the Jones trial she had filed an affidavit saying the assault charge by Clinton was untrue . But she later publicly said she only filed it because "I didn't want to be forced to testify about the most horrific event of my life." As I understand it ,that is consistent with the reluctance of other rape victims to go to court or file charges. She testified to the House Judiciary Committee during the Clinton impeachment days and David P. Schippers, chief investigator for the House Judiciary Committee found her story credible.

[JohnSnownw]

In one case ; Juanita Broaddrick (aka Jane Doe #5 in the Paula Jones trial ) ,claimed that she was raped by Bill Clinton in 1978 . During the Jones trial she had filed an affidavit saying the assault charge by Clinton was untrue . But she later publically said she only filed it because "I didn't want to be forced to testify about the most horrific event of my life." As I understand it ,that is consistent with the reluctance of other rape victims to go to court or file charges. She testified to the House Judiciary Commitee during the Clinton impeachment days and David P. Schippers, chief investigator for the House Judiciary Committee found her story credible.

Ahh, well, regardless of the validity of her first statement, she has shot herself in the foot. Her going back and forth is not going to add credibility to her story. Perhaps it's true, but it doesn't seem to fit Bill's personality, nor does it appear that he needs to rape woman in order to get them into bed.

The problem with all this is that it's old news. No one cares about Bill's infidelities, and unless someone can come forward who hasn't already tarnished their reputation and believability, all this will remain in the realm of conjecture. Which really isn't going to hurt Bill or the Clinton campaign at this juncture anyway.

[tomder55]

The Clinton's keep using the "old News" line also . But as we both know ;there is much dredging that goes on during these campaigns. Rudy G. is still answering questions about his personal life and all candidates have to defend their public record going back decades . You see ;the Clinton's don't mind the past being revisited if it helps them . Witness the fluff piece the NY Slimes wrote this week about Hillary in the 1960s .

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/05/us...05clinton.html

[JohnSnownw]

The Clinton's keep using the "old News" line also . But as we both know ;there is much dredging that goes on during these campaigns. Rudy G. is still answering questions about his personal life and all candidates have to defend their public record going back decades . You see ;the Clinton's don't mind the past being revisited if it helps them . Witness the fluff piece the NY Slimes wrote this week about Hillary in the 1960s .

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/05/us...05clinton.html

Wow, that is the most blatant example of propaganda, masked as a background profile article of a candidate, I have ever read in a major publication.

[tomder55]

Lol

How could you not vote for someone dedicated to cerebral policy debates.... a sponge for all the angst and argument engulfing her generation ?The future champion of the “large gray mass”.

[Dark_crow]

The Clinton's keep using the "old News" line also . But as we both know ;there is much dredging that goes on during these campaigns. Rudy G. is still answering questions about his personal life and all candidates have to defend their public record going back decades . You see ;the Clinton's don't mind the past being revisited if it helps them . Witness the fluff piece the NY Slimes wrote this week about Hillary in the 1960s .

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/05/us...05clinton.html

Great article Tom, just makes me want to run out and vote for Hillary.:)

[Wondergirl]

From a Salon.com Editor's Choice letter:

"The political reality remains that too many Iowa Democrats and independents can't get past Hillary Clinton's obvious lifelong desire for power, and her exquisitely hedged positions on just about everything important. Edwards, now that he is being scrutinized more closely, looks a lot more like an opportunist with a great smile than a President.

But, Barack Obama is still firmly planted where he's always been, preaching the gospel of redemption and hope, spinning a seductive tale of change, and carefully planning for the greatest political upset since JFK. The golden opportunity for generational change in our political leadership that Obama represents, and his promise to restore our pride in American leadership will carry him through to the Presidency. And Iowa will be the beginning."

[JohnSnownw]

From a Salon.com Editor's Choice letter:

"The political reality remains that too many Iowa Democrats and independents can't get past Hillary Clinton's obvious lifelong desire for power, and her exquisitely hedged positions on just about everything important. Edwards, now that he is being scrutinized more closely, looks a lot more like an opportunist with a great smile than a President.

But, Barack Obama is still firmly planted where he's always been, preaching the gospel of redemption and hope, spinning a seductive tale of change, and carefully planning for the greatest political upset since JFK. The golden opportunity for generational change in our political leadership that Obama represents, and his promise to restore our pride in American leadership will carry him through to the Presidency. And Iowa will be the beginning."

As much as I like Obama, I simply don't believe he will get the nomination. If he wants to be included in the race for president, I think he will have to be relegated to the VP position.

[ETWolverine]

Choux agrees: Reduced to common gossip, Elliot?? BWAHAHAHA A leader has to be tough. :D

I don't disagree with that point, Chou. I was just defending myself against the accusation that "I don't know anything about Hillary or Obama", and stating the reasons that I believe that Hillary and Obama can't get along together. Gossip, yes. But that is a valid basis for character assessment, isn't it?

[tomder55]

Snoozeweek has already anointed Evita the nominee .

How Does Hillary Clinton Make Decisions? - Newsweek Politics - MSNBC.com


They deserve each other .