Hillary for President!!

Watching the beginning debates the other day between Obama and McCain made me realize something. Neither one of them is in touch with middle class values.

McCain doesn't know how many houses he has.

Obama attacks him on that when in fact he recently moved into a high end house that paid over $1 million for. This house was some type of discounted deal or something like that, so that tells me it was worth considerably more.

No one is denying the right of Americans to make and spend money. That's one of the great principles this country was founded on. However, to hear either of these demagogues speak to us like they are the common man makes me want to puke. It's all total BS.

They are the elite of elite in America. There is no way either of these guys can claim with a straight face they represent the middle class.

I say we vote for Hillary Clinton on the ballot.

Many strategists have said a vote for her is a vote for McCain because not supporting the Democratic Party line is an automatic win for the Republicans. I say Hogwash!

The race for the Democratic nomination was a close one. That doesn't take into account the fact that many people who would vote for Hillary changed their minds when Obama won the delegates. These people originally intended to vote for her. I believe they could be persuaded to vote for her if they felt she had a chance.

At the end, she had more people votes than delegates. I believe she would win a fair election.

I am asking any who read this and have the remotest possible interest to send this along as an e-mail to those who might have supported Hillary.

Hillary wasn't my favorite nominee to begin with. I would have preferred someone who was committed to spend less on healthcare. I feel her universal healthcare program is not feasible.

The economy is in the toilet. Most people I associate with have 2 jobs to feed their families and make ends meet. Many are worrying about their mortgages and escalating fuel prices.

Moreover, the international arena is filed with terror and tough problems that need to be solved. IMO McCain would fail miserably by sending in more troops without results, and Obama is a fool for suggesting to "sit down and negotiate" with terrorists.:ROFLMAO:

There has to be a middle ground, and Hillary is it.

Please consider her as the best available option. I know many will say it's not possible, but where is it written in stone that we must only have 2 candidates? I just want others to know that writing her in is an option.

Thanks for reading this.

OK, suppose I buy into your premise. What guarantee do we have if Hillary is elected that the country will be in any better shape?

On the news today they said that tonight at the Democratic Convention people are going to be officially adding Hillary's name to the ballot. They claim she still has a lot of supporters. Let the voices be heard!!!

The whole convention process sucks, it's like a high school popularity contest.

Do we want Hillary/Billary?

Or Obama/Biden? - say it 10 times fast sounds like Obama bin laden.:laugh:

Neither one of these talking heads will deal honestly with the immigration issue, why bother?

I find the premises advanced here to be ludicrous. Since we are criticizing Obama, who BTW is no better than any of the liberal choices, let's look at a recent article detailing how Obama et al are very good at not addressing the real issues that face Americans today: Immigration, high commodity prices, housing crisis, and a sputtering economy.

Obama has no concrete plans to effectively fix any of the aforementioned problems.

George Will: Obama's energy policy promises more than he can deliver

The Monterey County Herald
Article Last Updated: 08/24/2008 01:51:42 AM PDT


Barack Obama has made his economic thinking excruciatingly clear, so it also is clear that his running mate should have been not Joe Biden, but Rumpelstiltskin.

He spun straw into gold, a skill an Obama administration will need to fulfill its fairy-tale promises.

Obama recently said he would "require that 10 percent of our energy comes from renewable sources by the end of my first term, more than double what we have now." Note the verb "require" and the adjective "renewable."

By 2012 he would "require" the economy's huge energy sector to — here things become comic — supply half as much energy from renewable sources as already is being supplied by just one potentially renewable source. About 20 percent of America's energy comes from nuclear energy produced using fuel rods, which, when spent, can be reprocessed into fresh fuel.

Obama is (this is part of liberalism's catechism) leery of nuclear power. He also says — and might say so even if Nevada were not a swing state — he distrusts the safety of Nevada's Yucca Mountain for storage of radioactive waste. Evidently he prefers today's situation — nuclear waste stored at 126 inherently insecure above-ground sites in 39 states, within 75 miles of where more than 161 million Americans live.

But back to requiring this or that quota of energy from renewable sources. What will that involve? For conservatives, seeing is believing; for liberals, believing is seeing. Obama seems to believe that if a particular outcome is desirable, one can see how to require it. But how does that work? Details to follow, sometime after noon, Jan. 20, 2009.

Obama promised that "we will get 1 million 150-mile-per-gallon plug-in hybrids on our roads within six years." What a tranquilizing verb "get" is.

This senator, who has never run so much as a Dairy Queen, is going to get a huge, complex industry to produce, and is going to get a million consumers to buy, these cars.

How? Almost certainly by federal financial incentives for both — billions of dollars of tax subsidies for automakers, and billions more to bribe customers to buy these cars they otherwise would spurn.

Conservatives are sometimes justly accused of ascribing magic powers to money and markets: Increase the monetary demand for anything and the supply of it will expand. But it is liberals such as Obama who think any new technological marvel or other social delight can be summoned into existence by a sufficient appropriation.

Regarding taxes, Obama says, "We don't want to return to marginal rates of 60 or 70 percent." The top federal rate was 70 percent until the Reagan cuts of 1981. It has since ranged between 50 in 1982 and today's 35. Obama promises that expiration of the Bush tax cuts will restore the 39.6 rate. He favors a payroll tax of up to 4 percent on earnings above $250,000 (today, only the first $102,000 is taxed), most of which are subject to the highest state income tax rates.

When the top federal rate was set at 28 under Reagan, payroll taxes were not levied on income over $42,000, so the top effective rate of combined taxes was under 35. Obama's policies would bring it to the mid-50s for many Americans, close to the 60 percent Obama considers excessive.

There never is a shortage of nonsensical political rhetoric, but really: Has there ever been solemn silliness comparable to today's politicians tarting up their agendas as things designed for, and necessary to, "saving the planet," and promising edicts to "require" entire industries to reorder themselves?

In 1996, Bob Dole, citing the Clinton campaign's scabrous fundraising, exclaimed: "Where's the outrage?" This year's campaign, soggy with environmental messianism, deranged self-importance and delusional economics, the question is: Where is the derisive laughter?

George Will writes for The Washington Post.

Hillary received 351 of the delegate votes. She handed them over to Obama. Do we continue to fight for her, or support her by choosing a man who will bring our men home, fight for the american people and the american dream?

Obama is no more a fighter for the American dream than Howard Hughes was. How can you consider him part of the middle class?

He's just like the rest of the elected officials who promise everything, but when elected only help themselves and the special interests that got them elected.

Anyone feel now that Palin is the GOP veep choice, Hillary as a viable option is no longer realistic?