>If there are words who's meaning
>you need explained, I'm sure you'll
>find a dictionary will be helpful in
>that regard. But your "I'm offensive
>because I'm a victim" game is one that
>you'll have to play alone today.

Translation:
"I am afraid to make an unequivocal stand on any issue because it might turn out to be wrong and I cannot stand that. So I will go thru life just waffling on everything..."

Well, since you are afraid to make your meanings clear, I will simply go on with throwing your own words back at you...

So, you honestly think Hillary Clinton can beat Guiliani...

Time will tell who is right and who is wrong... :D

Michale.....

>And for the record, just where in
>your imagination did I ever say that?
OK, fair enough..
If I misunderstood your position, then feel free to clarify…
~~~~~

You seem to think that my participation is subject to your approval, and that my meanings are subject to your interpretation. I, on the other hand, harbor no such illusion.

If there are words who's meaning you need explained, I'm sure you'll find a dictionary will be helpful in that regard. But your "I'm offensive because I'm a victim" game is one that you'll have to play alone today.

>And for the record, just where in
>your imagination did I ever say that?

OK, fair enough..

If I misunderstood your position, then feel free to clarify...

Are you saying that Hillary WILL win the General Election, assuming she makes it in the Primaries??

Or are you simply waffling and saying that Hillary COULD win the General Election, if she makes it in the primaries??

Why are you always so afraid to go on record..

You appear to not only NOT have the strength of your convictions, you appear to not have ANY convictions at all...

I find that very sad and feel sorry for you...

Michale.....

Ouch... And the ref takes a point away!! :D

However, I am constrained to point out that what you perceive as "always on the attack" is nothing more than "The Best Defense"... :D

As in, "The Best Defense Is A Strong Offense".... :D

Michale.....

If I understand what you're saying, Hillary represents the corporate-DLC-willing-to-compromise wing of the Democrats, and Rudy represents Republicans who have actually lived in a big city and are socially moderate. But then I could be wrong about that.

In any case, I wanted to thank you for your comment, and invite you to comment on today's article (Wed.) as your comment here largely inspired me to write further about the potential Rudy-v-Hillary race. So I'd be interested to hear your take on my followup.

In any case, thanks for commenting.

-CW

Welcome.

It's good to have voices from the right that aren't on the attack.

I have a couple of questions for you, you say, "The problem with Hilary is that she represents a great deal of what is wrong the Democratic party, and that Rudy represents a great deal about what is good about the Republicans.".

I'm interested, what is the great deal that is wrong with the Democratic party, and what is the great deal that is right with the Republican party?

Thanks.

And, for the record, you did not say "Hillary COULD win"… You stated that Hillary WILL win..
~~~~~

And for the record, just where in your imagination did I ever say that?

The word you are looking for is not "necessary". The word you are looking for is "possible".

As in, it's hardly POSSIBLE that you can show any hypocrisy on my part, because there hasn't been..

This seems to be your MO.. You make grandiose and BS statements and then fail to provide ANY supportive documentation..

And, for the record, you did not say "Hillary COULD win"... You stated that Hillary WILL win..

Now, of course, if you want to waffle on or retract your claim, feel free... It will simply be more proof that you are afraid to stake a definite position on anything...

Much like Hillary Clinton herself...

Michale.....

As for proving your hypocrisy (torture), that's hardly necessary. All I have to do is inspire you to keep opening your mouth. This will prove to those with open minds where you're coming from. As for you closed minded types, Exxon has an environmental policy that you'll find fascinating.

>HYPOCRITE Michale…..

Please point to ANY position or statement I have made that is hypocritical..

You can't because it just ain't so..

However, I can point to MANY statements of yours that are hypocritical.

For example, I see you neglected to comment on the fact that Hillary listened in on private cell phone calls of her political opponents...

Seems kind of hypocritical of you.. Especially in light of how you castigate Bush for the surveillance programs that your Democrats overwhelmingly approved....

As far as your prediction, that's fine.. You are on record as saying that Hillary can win the Presidency..

As I said above, time will tell who is right and who is wrong..

Unless, of course, you will waffle your "prediction" in the coming weeks and months...

Michale.....

Michale…..
~~~~~

I've got no trouble with that:

HYPOCRITE Michale…..

As for your election predictions, didn't you predict that the Gop would hold the congressional majority after the 2006 elections ... Yes.

Your prediction for 2008 is worthy of note, but I'm confident that ANY democratic candidate will beat the creationist crowd that the Gop is banking on.

And I was right in 2006 ... let's see if I can get 2 for 2 over you.

Can you say HYPOCRITE???

Michale.....

Time will tell who is right and who is wrong...

Michale.....

Can you think of any Gop candidates that can fill those shoes? Now that you've got a name in mind, what's the possibility that they'll win the primary?

I think the anti-Hillary crowd will be overwhelmed by the anti-stick-in-the-mud crowd ... unless the Gop primaries dump the anti-science-front-runners in favor of someone with something to say.

The top polls are already dispelling fears that Hillary, even based on personality issues will polarize the voters thus handing presumably Giuliani a landslide win.

I personally predict that such continued right wing propaganda will come back to bite the right at the polls.

Like fstanley said, many more GOP will mobilize to vote AGAINST Hillary than Dems would mobilize to vote AGAINST the GOP candidate. Especially if that GOP Candidate is Guiliani..

I can see MANY of the conservative Democrat voters actually showing up to also vote AGAINST Hillary...

I'll say it again.. If Hillary is the Dem Candidate you can be assured that, come 2009, there WILL be a Republican president in the White House..

Michale.....

I thought that the conventional wisdow would suggest that low voter turnout gave the advantage to the hard core base that will always vote for their party ticket no matter what. And that means that more GOP voters will go to the polls than Dems.

...Stan

The last poll I saw cited said that 41% of those polled WOULDN'T vote for Hillary. Does that mean 59% will? Hardly. Look at any poll where there are numerous choices and you see that 43% can be the high with 30's running second and third. Even IF Hillary wins the nomination in the primary, how many voters WON'T vote because that means it'll be Hillary or the GOP.

I wouldn't say it will be "ho-hum". The GOP is providing great popcorn time for the citizenry as it self-destructs (though, their candidates are worse than ho-hum). The Democrats have, actually, a so-so class. None of the candidates have outstanding credentials.