More than half of Americans say they will never vote for evil witch Hillary Clinton!

http://www.contracostatimes.com/portlet/article/html/fragments/print_article.jsp?articleId=6260144&siteId=571

More than half of Americans won't vote for Clinton, poll shows

Survey provides a snapshot of the senator's challenges as she seeks

the Democratic nomination for president

By William Douglas

MCCLATCHY WASHINGTON BUREAU

Contra Costa Times

WASHINGTON -- More than half of Americans say they wouldn't consider

voting for Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton for president if she becomes

the Democratic nominee, according to a new national poll made

available to McClatchy Newspapers and NBC News.

The poll by Mason-Dixon Polling and Research found that 52 percent of

Americans wouldn't consider voting for Clinton, D-N.Y. Former

Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, a Republican, was second in the can't-

stand-'em category, with 46 percent saying they wouldn't consider

voting for him.

Clinton has long been considered a politically polarizing figure who

would be a tough sell to some voters, especially many men, but also

Clinton-haters of both genders.

Thursday's survey provides a snapshot of the challenges she faces,

according to Larry Harris, a Mason-Dixon principal.

"Hillary's carrying a lot of baggage," he said. "She's the only one

that has a majority who say they can't vote for her."

Clinton rang up high negatives across the board, with 60 percent of

independents, 56 percent of men, 47 percent of women and 88 percent of

Republicans saying they wouldn't consider voting for her.

Romney struggled most with women: 50.9 percent said they wouldn't

consider voting for him.

"It's the flip-flop of Hillary," Harris said of Romney. "One could

suppose it's the Mormon issue -- we didn't ask follow-up questions --

but his religion is an issue."

On name recognition, Clinton also led the 2008 presidential pack in

voter disapproval, with 42 percent saying they recognized her name and

were unfavorable toward her, versus 39 percent favorable.

That gave her a double-digit lead in that bad-news category over

Republican Sen. John McCain of Arizona and former North Carolina Sen.

John Edwards, a Democrat. They each had 28 percent unfavorable

recognition.

Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani had the highest favorable

recognition at 43 percent, with Clinton close behind at 39 percent.

Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., was third at 36 percent, followed by McCain

at 33 percent and Edwards at 32 percent.

McCain rang up the highest favorable rating among independent voters

with 39.4 percent, followed by Giuliani with 37.3 percent. Edwards

scored well with independents, too, with 31.1 percent favorable; Obama

had 28 percent favorable.

The Mason-Dixon survey was conducted June 23-25 with 625 likely

general-election voters. It has an error margin of plus or minus 4

percentage points.

> More thanhalfofAmericanswon'tvotefor Clinton, poll shows

> Survey provides a snapshot of the senator's challenges as she seeks

> the Democratic nomination for president

This will not be an issue for Hillary. Recall that Bill got two terms

in the Whitehouse and never had even fifty percent of the popular

vote. IIRC, Bill received 43% / 47% in his two runs for the

Whitehouse. Thanks to Perot who took on the role of spoiler.

I believe that the Clintons are hoping for the same break in 2008; a

3rd party candidate who will pull in enough moderate and moderate-

right voters to allow Hillary a walk into the Whitehouse.

Hillary expects to be in the Whitehouse in January of 2009, and will

allow nothing to conflict with that objective.

"inkyblacks@yahoo.com" <inkyblacks@yahoo.com> allegedly said in

news:1183134352.220982.303860@a26g2000pre.googlegroups.com:

Hey, that's Madame President Clinton to the likes of a drooling little

fuckwit like you...

You should repeat it so you can get used to saying it for 8 years.

<snicker>

Gonzo Funeral Watch: 108 days 16 hours 45 minutes and counting

--

AW

<small but dangerous>

Hillary Clinton has a chance to win the Democratic Party nomination,

but zero chance to win the general election. The only possible 3rd

party candidate of importance would be current New York City mayor

Michael Bloomberg, who will take away Democratic votes, not Republican

votes. Bloomberg is a liberal. He was registered as a Republican for

a time only to get a chance to run for mayor. It was a technical

scam. He was and is effectively a Democrat.

If Democrats are stupid enough to nominate Hillary Clinton, they will

only assure that Fred Thomspon will be the next president. A vote for

Hillary is a vote to put a Republican in the White House in 08.

IB

On Jun 29, 11:11 am, Don't Wait Up <pinto...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> > More thanhalfofAmericanswon'tvotefor Clinton, poll shows

> > Survey provides a snapshot of the senator's challenges as she seeks

> > the Democratic nomination for president

>

> This will not be an issue for Hillary. Recall that Bill got two terms

> in the Whitehouse and never had even fifty percent of the popular

> vote. IIRC, Bill received 43% / 47% in his two runs for the

> Whitehouse. Thanks to Perot who took on the role of spoiler.

>

> I believe that the Clintons are hoping for the same break in 2008; a

> 3rd party candidate who will pull in enough moderate and moderate-

> right voters to allow Hillary a walk into the Whitehouse.

>

> Hillary expects to be in the Whitehouse in January of 2009, and will

> allow nothing to conflict with that objective.

On Jun 29, 3:51 pm, "inkybla...@yahoo.com" <inkybla...@yahoo.com>

wrote:

> Hillary Clinton has a chance to win the Democratic Party nomination,

> but zero chance to win the general election. The only possible 3rd

> party candidate of importance would be current New York City mayor

> Michael Bloomberg, who will take away Democratic votes, not Republican

> votes. Bloomberg is a liberal. He was registered as a Republican for

> a time only to get a chance to run for mayor. It was a technical

> scam. He was and is effectively a Democrat.

>

> If Democrats are stupid enough to nominate Hillary Clinton, they will

> only assure that Fred Thomspon will be the next president. A vote for

> Hillary is a vote to put a Republican in the White House in 08.

>

> IB

>

> On Jun 29, 11:11 am, Don't Wait Up <pinto...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>

> > > More thanhalfofAmericanswon'tvotefor Clinton, poll shows

> > > Survey provides a snapshot of the senator's challenges as she seeks

> > > the Democratic nomination for president

>

> > This will not be an issue for Hillary. Recall that Bill got two terms

> > in the Whitehouse and never had even fifty percent of the popular

> > vote. IIRC, Bill received 43% / 47% in his two runs for the

> > Whitehouse. Thanks to Perot who took on the role of spoiler.

>

> > I believe that the Clintons are hoping for the same break in 2008; a

> > 3rd party candidate who will pull in enough moderate and moderate-

> > right voters to allow Hillary a walk into the Whitehouse.

>

> > Hillary expects to be in the Whitehouse in January of 2009, and will

> > allow nothing to conflict with that objective.

LOL after the present administration, I'm sure at least some of the

Republicans will have the sense to vote intelligently (for a change).

On Jun 29, 12:54 pm, Wes Penn <wespen...@gmail.com> wrote:

"I'm sure at least some of the Republicans will have the sense to vote

intelligently (for a change"

--------------------------------------------------------------------

You are WAY out of touch with reality if you think any significant

percentage of Republicans will vote for Hillary Clinton. No polling

service shows any significant Republican votes for HC.

To win the general election, a Democratic candidate must win the

majority of registered Democrat votes, plus the majority of

Independent votes. Polls show that very few Independents will vote

for Hillary and only about half of Democrats will vote for her.

Millions and millions of Democrats will vote Republican if she gains

the nomination.

Fred Thompson is a formidable candidate. If Democrats want to win in

08, they had better nominate Obama, Edwards, or Gore.

Hillary Clinton = doom for Democrats. She knows that, but as always,

she puts her own ego ahead of the welfare of her own country. Hillary

is a sell-out politician, a whore who will do anything to gain power.

She has a long history of lying and she has many faces, not just one.

The majority of Americans see through her and don't like her and will

NEVER vote for her.

Hillary Clinton = suicide for Democrats!

IB

On Jun 29, 7:45 pm, "inkybla...@yahoo.com" <inkybla...@yahoo.com>

wrote:

> On Jun 29, 12:54 pm, Wes Penn <wespen...@gmail.com> wrote:

>

> "I'm sure at least some of the Republicans will have the sense to vote

> intelligently (for a change"

> --------------------------------------------------------------------

> You are WAY out of touch with reality if you think any significant

> percentage of Republicans will vote for Hillary Clinton. No polling

> service shows any significant Republican votes for HC.

>

> To win the general election, a Democratic candidate must win the

> majority of registered Democrat votes, plus the majority of

> Independent votes. Polls show that very few Independents will vote

> for Hillary and only about half of Democrats will vote for her.

> Millions and millions of Democrats will vote Republican if she gains

> the nomination.

>

> Fred Thompson is a formidable candidate. If Democrats want to win in

> 08, they had better nominate Obama, Edwards, or Gore.

>

> Hillary Clinton = doom for Democrats. She knows that, but as always,

> she puts her own ego ahead of the welfare of her own country. Hillary

> is a sell-out politician, a whore who will do anything to gain power.

> She has a long history of lying and she has many faces, not just one.

> The majority of Americans see through her and don't like her and will

> NEVER vote for her.

>

> Hillary Clinton = suicide for Democrats!

>

> IB

Well, at least here's one who won't vote intelligently.

inkyblacks@yahoo.com wrote:

> http://www.contracostatimes.com/portlet/article/html/fragments/print_article.jsp?articleId=6260144&siteId=571

>

> More than half of Americans won't vote for Clinton, poll shows

> Survey provides a snapshot of the senator's challenges as she seeks

> the Democratic nomination for president

More than half won't vote for anyone.

Wes Penn wrote:

> On Jun 29, 7:45 pm, "inkybla...@yahoo.com" <inkybla...@yahoo.com>

> wrote:

>> On Jun 29, 12:54 pm, Wes Penn <wespen...@gmail.com> wrote:

>>

>> "I'm sure at least some of the Republicans will have the sense to

>> vote intelligently (for a change"

>> --------------------------------------------------------------------

>> You are WAY out of touch with reality if you think any significant

>> percentage of Republicans will vote for Hillary Clinton. No polling

>> service shows any significant Republican votes for HC.

>>

>> To win the general election, a Democratic candidate must win the

>> majority of registered Democrat votes, plus the majority of

>> Independent votes. Polls show that very few Independents will vote

>> for Hillary and only about half of Democrats will vote for her.

>> Millions and millions of Democrats will vote Republican if she gains

>> the nomination.

>>

>> Fred Thompson is a formidable candidate. If Democrats want to win in

>> 08, they had better nominate Obama, Edwards, or Gore.

>>

>> Hillary Clinton = doom for Democrats. She knows that, but as always,

>> she puts her own ego ahead of the welfare of her own country.

>> Hillary is a sell-out politician, a whore who will do anything to

>> gain power. She has a long history of lying and she has many faces,

>> not just one. The majority of Americans see through her and don't

>> like her and will NEVER vote for her.

>>

>> Hillary Clinton = suicide for Democrats!

>>

>> IB

>

> Well, at least here's one who won't vote intelligently.

Typical neocon misogyny.

"Amanda Williams" <pms@fu.com> wrote in message

news:Xns995EAAEDB9422fubar@63.218.45.254...

> "inkyblacks@yahoo.com" <inkyblacks@yahoo.com> allegedly said in

> news:1183134352.220982.303860@a26g2000pre.googlegroups.com:

>

> Hey, that's Madame President Clinton to the likes of a drooling little

> fuckwit like you...

>

> You should repeat it so you can get used to saying it for 8 years.

LOL, directly from a kooky leftist! If you believe that Hillary can win a

general presidential election, your are truly blind and/or ignorant to

reality!

But go ahead and help her get the Democratic nomination...it will only help

the Republican nominee!

>

> <snicker>

>

>

> Gonzo Funeral Watch: 108 days 16 hours 45 minutes and counting

>

> --

> AW

>

> <small but dangerous>

NBC wrote:

> "Amanda Williams" <pms@fu.com> wrote in message

> news:Xns995EAAEDB9422fubar@63.218.45.254...

>> "inkyblacks@yahoo.com" <inkyblacks@yahoo.com> allegedly said in

>> news:1183134352.220982.303860@a26g2000pre.googlegroups.com:

>>

>> Hey, that's Madame President Clinton to the likes of a drooling

>> little fuckwit like you...

>>

>> You should repeat it so you can get used to saying it for 8 years.

>

>

> LOL, directly from a kooky leftist! If you believe that Hillary can

> win a general presidential election, your are truly blind and/or

> ignorant to reality!

> But go ahead and help her get the Democratic nomination...it will

> only help the Republican nominee!

The only reason anyone thinks Hillary can win is the weak Republican field.

Then again, everyone thought Bush II was a lightweight.

Hmmm...I guess that works to Clinton's favor too.

"Geoff" <gebobs@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote in message

news:kIWdnbjHgKhx3xXbnZ2dnUVZ_ternZ2d@giganews.com...

> NBC wrote:

>> "Amanda Williams" <pms@fu.com> wrote in message

>> news:Xns995EAAEDB9422fubar@63.218.45.254...

>>> "inkyblacks@yahoo.com" <inkyblacks@yahoo.com> allegedly said in

>>> news:1183134352.220982.303860@a26g2000pre.googlegroups.com:

>>>

>>> Hey, that's Madame President Clinton to the likes of a drooling

>>> little fuckwit like you...

>>>

>>> You should repeat it so you can get used to saying it for 8 years.

>>

>>

>> LOL, directly from a kooky leftist! If you believe that Hillary can

>> win a general presidential election, your are truly blind and/or

>> ignorant to reality!

>> But go ahead and help her get the Democratic nomination...it will

>> only help the Republican nominee!

>

> The only reason anyone thinks Hillary can win is the weak Republican

> field. Then again, everyone thought Bush II was a lightweight.

>

> Hmmm...I guess that works to Clinton's favor too.

>

Fred Thompson could win over Hillary!

On Jul 1, 4:12 pm, "Geoff" <geb...@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote:

"The only reason anyone thinks Hillary can win is the weak Republican

field.

Then again, everyone thought Bush II was a lightweight."

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fred Thompson is no lightweight, and will be a serious challenge to

any Democratic candidate. I think Barack Obama has a good chance of

beating Fred Thompson in a general election. Thompson has allot of

appeal to voters, and it is amazing that he is now the leading

Republican candidate even though he has not officially declared yet.

If Democrats want to beat him, they had better not nominate a lying,

two faced witch that the majority of Americans do not like.

It looks like smarter Democrats are realizing that Hillary = doom for

Democrats. Obama is beating her in the polls and raising more cash.

Just being Bill Clinton's lying wife is not enough to become

president. In the last election, I voted all Democrat, but I will

never vote for the lying witch under any circumstances. I won't vote

for Thompson either, but will write in Obama's name if Hillary wins

the nomination. Let's hope it does not come to that.

IB

> The poll by Mason-Dixon Polling and Research found that 52 percent of

> Americans wouldn't consider voting for Clinton, D-N.Y. Former

> Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, a Republican, was second in the can't-

> stand-'em category, with 46 percent saying they wouldn't consider

> voting for him.

Does this mean Mitt has a 3 pt lead on Hillary?

Or that Rudy will do really great in SC and get the nomination and win

by double digits?

It's sooo _hard_ to figger out why Repugs are so afraid of the

Clintons.

I'm scratchin' my weedle noggin but I can't figger it out.

Bret Cahill

> > The majority of Americans see through her and don't like her and will

> > NEVER vote for her.

> > Hillary Clinton = suicide for Democrats!

> Well, at least here's one who won't vote intelligently.

Hard to say. Deep down he probably wants another high tax Clinton

economic boom.

But you know rightards . . . they like to impress everyone with how

rightarded they are.

Bret Cahill

> The only reason anyone thinks Hillary can win is the weak Republican field.

Actually Mitt will be as effective against the Clintons as Dole or GHW

Bush.

> Then again, everyone thought Bush II was a lightweight.

Democrats didn't run anyone against Dumbya in 2000 or 2004.

> Hmmm...I guess that works to Clinton's favor too

Let's just say Hillary will be unopposed in 2008.

Bret Cahill

Bret Cahill wrote:

>> The poll by Mason-Dixon Polling and Research found that 52 percent of

>> Americans wouldn't consider voting for Clinton, D-N.Y. Former

>> Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, a Republican, was second in the can't-

>> stand-'em category, with 46 percent saying they wouldn't consider

>> voting for him.

>

> Does this mean Mitt has a 3 pt lead on Hillary?

>

> Or that Rudy will do really great in SC and get the nomination and win

> by double digits?

>

> It's sooo _hard_ to figger out why Repugs are so afraid of the

> Clintons.

>

> I'm scratchin' my weedle noggin but I can't figger it out.

>

>

> Bret Cahill

>

>

It may be because every time they have a problem the knee jerk

reaction is to blame Clinton and having done that over and over they now

believe themselves.

Geoff wrote:

> NBC wrote:

>

>> "Amanda Williams" <pms@fu.com> wrote in message

>> news:Xns995EAAEDB9422fubar@63.218.45.254...

>>

>>> "inkyblacks@yahoo.com" <inkyblacks@yahoo.com> allegedly said in

>>> news:1183134352.220982.303860@a26g2000pre.googlegroups.com:

>>>

>>> Hey, that's Madame President Clinton to the likes of a drooling

>>> little fuckwit like you...

>>>

>>> You should repeat it so you can get used to saying it for 8 years.

>>>

>> LOL, directly from a kooky leftist! If you believe that Hillary can

>> win a general presidential election, your are truly blind and/or

>> ignorant to reality!

>> But go ahead and help her get the Democratic nomination...it will

>> only help the Republican nominee!

>>

>

> The only reason anyone thinks Hillary can win is the weak Republican field.

> Then again, everyone thought Bush II was a lightweight.

>

> Hmmm...I guess that works to Clinton's favor too.

>

>

>

bush jr is a lightweight. but cheney is one heavy mutha.

--

On the right,The John Birch Society's website editor recently opined of the Bush Administration's warrantless wiretap program: "This is to say that from the administration's perspective, the president is, in effect, our living constitution. This is, in a specific and unmistakable sense, fascist."

On Jun 29, 4:44 pm, Amanda Williams <p...@fu.com> wrote:

> "inkybla...@yahoo.com" <inkybla...@yahoo.com> allegedly said innews:1183134352.220982.303860@a26g2000pre.googlegroups.com:

>

> Hey, that's Madame President Clinton to the likes of a drooling little

> fuckwit like you...

>

> You should repeat it so you can get used to saying it for 8 years.

>

So, tell me; what is so wonderful about Hillary? Why, specifically,

would you vote for her?

> <snicker>

>

> Gonzo Funeral Watch: 108 days 16 hours 45 minutes and counting

>

> --

> AW

>

> <small but dangerous>

mpautz@gmail.com wrote:

> On Jun 29, 4:44 pm, Amanda Williams <p...@fu.com> wrote:

>> "inkybla...@yahoo.com" <inkybla...@yahoo.com> allegedly said

>> innews:1183134352.220982.303860@a26g2000pre.googlegroups.com:

>>

>> Hey, that's Madame President Clinton to the likes of a drooling

>> little

>> fuckwit like you...

>>

>> You should repeat it so you can get used to saying it for 8 years.

>>

>

> So, tell me; what is so wonderful about Hillary? Why, specifically,

> would you vote for her?

For one thing, it's absolutely hilarious how you Republicans get your

panties in a bunch at the mere mention of her name.

On Jul 3, 2:43 pm, "Geoff" <geb...@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote:

> mpa...@gmail.com wrote:

> > On Jun 29, 4:44 pm, Amanda Williams <p...@fu.com> wrote:

> >> "inkybla...@yahoo.com" <inkybla...@yahoo.com> allegedly said

> >> innews:1183134352.220982.303860@a26g2000pre.googlegroups.com:

>

> >> Hey, that's Madame President Clinton to the likes of a drooling

> >> little

> >> fuckwit like you...

>

> >> You should repeat it so you can get used to saying it for 8 years.

>

> > So, tell me; what is so wonderful about Hillary? Why, specifically,

> > would you vote for her?

>

> For one thing, it's absolutely hilarious how you Republicans get your

> panties in a bunch at the mere mention of her name.

What makes you think I am republican? You are wrong about that.

I am amazed that Democrats do NOT get their panties in a bunch at the

mere mention of her name. I think she will be the worst thing there

is for the both the Democratic party AND the country.

I did notice that you were unable to mention one single reason to vote

for her.

mpautz@gmail.com wrote:

> On Jul 3, 2:43 pm, "Geoff" <geb...@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote:

>> mpa...@gmail.com wrote:

>>> On Jun 29, 4:44 pm, Amanda Williams <p...@fu.com> wrote:

>>>> "inkybla...@yahoo.com" <inkybla...@yahoo.com> allegedly said

>>>> innews:1183134352.220982.303860@a26g2000pre.googlegroups.com:

>>

>>>> Hey, that's Madame President Clinton to the likes of a drooling

>>>> little

>>>> fuckwit like you...

>>

>>>> You should repeat it so you can get used to saying it for 8 years.

>>

>>> So, tell me; what is so wonderful about Hillary? Why, specifically,

>>> would you vote for her?

>>

>> For one thing, it's absolutely hilarious how you Republicans get your

>> panties in a bunch at the mere mention of her name.

>

> What makes you think I am republican? You are wrong about that.

Sorry. Let me rephrase that: "For one thing, it's absolutely hilarious how

Republicans get their panties in a bunch at the mere mention of her name."

> I am amazed that Democrats do NOT get their panties in a bunch at the

> mere mention of her name. I think she will be the worst thing there

> is for the both the Democratic party AND the country.

>

> I did notice that you were unable to mention one single reason to vote

> for her.

Who said I would vote for her? Anyway, I did give one reason. It's not a

really good reason, I admit, and was only offered as a little levity.

On Jul 3, 3:10 pm, "Geoff" <geb...@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote:

> mpa...@gmail.com wrote:

> > On Jul 3, 2:43 pm, "Geoff" <geb...@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote:

> >> mpa...@gmail.com wrote:

> >>> On Jun 29, 4:44 pm, Amanda Williams <p...@fu.com> wrote:

> >>>> "inkybla...@yahoo.com" <inkybla...@yahoo.com> allegedly said

> >>>> innews:1183134352.220982.303860@a26g2000pre.googlegroups.com:

>

> >>>> Hey, that's Madame President Clinton to the likes of a drooling

> >>>> little

> >>>> fuckwit like you...

>

> >>>> You should repeat it so you can get used to saying it for 8 years.

>

> >>> So, tell me; what is so wonderful about Hillary? Why, specifically,

> >>> would you vote for her?

>

> >> For one thing, it's absolutely hilarious how you Republicans get your

> >> panties in a bunch at the mere mention of her name.

>

> > What makes you think I am republican? You are wrong about that.

>

> Sorry. Let me rephrase that: "For one thing, it's absolutely hilarious how

> Republicans get their panties in a bunch at the mere mention of her name."

>

OK, I will accept that. I personally don't think it is hilarious that

Republicans get their panties in a bunch; I would expect them to do

this. What bothers me is that Democrats don't get their panties in a

bunch.

I get the feeling that, when democrats express no outrage at Hillary,

they express that they have no values or goals; anyone with a (D)

after their name is OK.

If she get's into power, she will be detrimental to the country. As

she exposes who she is, She will alienate the senators and congressmen

from her party. As all of this happens, she will take down the

democratic party.

I am a fiscal conservative. I am also a liberal. By that, I mean

that I believe in personal liberty as well as economic liberty. Being

a fiscal conservative and believing in personal liberty, I can't be a

republican. Believing in economic liberty means that I am not a

socialist. That excludes me from the Democratic party.

I am a person without a party.

> > I am amazed that Democrats do NOT get their panties in a bunch at the

> > mere mention of her name. I think she will be the worst thing there

> > is for the both the Democratic party AND the country.

>

> > I did notice that you were unable to mention one single reason to vote

> > for her.

>

> Who said I would vote for her? Anyway, I did give one reason. It's not a

> really good reason, I admit, and was only offered as a little levity.- Hide quoted text -

>

> - Show quoted text -

"Geoff" <gebobs@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote in message

news:GOadnWK6VslSBRfbnZ2dnUVZ_jydnZ2d@giganews.com...

> mpautz@gmail.com wrote:

>> On Jun 29, 4:44 pm, Amanda Williams <p...@fu.com> wrote:

>>> "inkybla...@yahoo.com" <inkybla...@yahoo.com> allegedly said

>>> innews:1183134352.220982.303860@a26g2000pre.googlegroups.com:

>>>

>>> Hey, that's Madame President Clinton to the likes of a drooling

>>> little

>>> fuckwit like you...

>>>

>>> You should repeat it so you can get used to saying it for 8 years.

>>>

>>

>> So, tell me; what is so wonderful about Hillary? Why, specifically,

>> would you vote for her?

>

> For one thing, it's absolutely hilarious how you Republicans get your

> panties in a bunch at the mere mention of her name.

She is also a genius. Smarts scare righties.

After 8 year of this fuckwit Bush, I want somebody who is smarter than the

average piece of trailer trash running things.

On Jul 3, 4:24 pm, "Biscuits and Books"

<Cheney_did_Bar...@earthlink.net> wrote:

> "Geoff" <geb...@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote in message

>

> news:GOadnWK6VslSBRfbnZ2dnUVZ_jydnZ2d@giganews.com...

>

>

>

>

>

> > mpa...@gmail.com wrote:

> >> On Jun 29, 4:44 pm, Amanda Williams <p...@fu.com> wrote:

> >>> "inkybla...@yahoo.com" <inkybla...@yahoo.com> allegedly said

> >>> innews:1183134352.220982.303860@a26g2000pre.googlegroups.com:

>

> >>> Hey, that's Madame President Clinton to the likes of a drooling

> >>> little

> >>> fuckwit like you...

>

> >>> You should repeat it so you can get used to saying it for 8 years.

>

> >> So, tell me; what is so wonderful about Hillary? Why, specifically,

> >> would you vote for her?

>

> > For one thing, it's absolutely hilarious how you Republicans get your

> > panties in a bunch at the mere mention of her name.

>

> She is also a genius. Smarts scare righties.

I agree that she is a genius. She is so smart that she has convinced

you to vote for her, even though you have no clue what she stands for.

> After 8 year of this fuckwit Bush, I want somebody who is smarter than the

> average piece of trailer trash running things.- Hide quoted text -

>

> - Show quoted text -