Who?s Behind the Breck Girl (John Edwards) Hit? - NO Hillary Clinton For President

WiseOne · #1 12.19.2007

RUSH: This National Enquirer story, John Edwards' lovechild, I've been having trouble with this. I'm not sure I buy this. But I think I understand why the story hit last night. From NBC: "In an Insider Advantage poll in Iowa, John [...]

Read More Here >> Against Hillary

Herb Schaffler · #2 12.20.2007

I've always felt that Edwards is the only one of the three leading contenders on the Democratic side who could win the general election. Hillary is hated by too many people. Obama's race and lack of experience will hurt him. Ofcourse, Edwards doesn't have much experience either, but as the vice presidential candidate in the last election, people feel he's been around awhile. Democrats may come to feel that he has the best chance to win in the general election and may end up moving over to him. If he wins in Iowa, he could catch fire. Hillary's camp may also realize this. As a former vice presidential candidate and having been in elected political office slightly longer than Hillary, they may have a harder time trying to convince the public that he's not experienced enough as they are doing with Obama. That could be why their trying to sabatoge him, if indeed they are the ones who are putting this information out about his love child. Am I going too far out on a limb right now to say that it may end up being a race between Edwards and Romney? Guiliani may have problems winning the nomination after losing the first three states. His views on abortion and gun rights also hurt him with large segments of the Republican Party. Huckabee is too fiscally liberal to win the nomination and his playing the religion card too much is starting to turn alot of Republicans off, including some devoutly religious Republicans. His comment about peoples' prayers helping to rise in the polls have really turned off some people. What's he trying to say? That God is on his side and opposed to all his Republican opposition?

There are alot of Republicans that don't like Romney because of his Mormonism and his flip flopping, but comparing him to all of his opposition, he comes off as being real charismatic and he is an administrator because of his experience as Governor. Huckabee is good in those areas also, but because of his fiscal liberalism and his playing the religion card too much will hurt him. There are also fears that he couldn't win the general election.

McCain is too old and is not well liked because of his position on immigration.

Ron Paul will be in the race to the end because of all the money he's raised and all the support he's getting, but a lot of that support is coming from independents and antiwar Democrats. Ron Paul will have a hard time winning the nomination in the Republican Party. A candidate with Ron Paul's antiwar views could probably win in the Democrat Party. I'm surprised Kucinich isn't doing any better.

Forget about Trancredo, Duncan Hunter, and Alan Keyes. It won't be long before they leave the race.

So my iffy prediction right now is that it might be Romney against Edwards with Romney winning the general election because of his administrative experience. There hasn't been a Senator elected to the Presidency since JFK and even then, people say he only won because of vote fraud in Cook County, IL and Duval County, TX.

nohil-billy · #3 08.09.2008

I've got only one thing to say to everybody who backed this phony, cheating, hypocritical, ambulance chasing, effeminate, son-of-a-millworker. You deserve it!!! HA,HA,HA,HA,HA!!!!

[LINK POSTED BY MEMBER] Only Members Can View This No Hillary For President Forum Link.
[LINK POSTED BY MEMBER] Only Members Can View This No Hillary For President Forum Link.
[LINK POSTED BY MEMBER] Only Members Can View This No Hillary For President Forum Link.

Hey WiseOne, it's a sad, sad, day for the MSM when they're scooped by the tabloids and the blogosphere on such a huge story. At least the tabloids are more honest and forthcoming which is way more than we can say about the MSM.

Herb Schaffler · #4 08.11.2008

You can bet the MSM would have been all over the story if it had been a Republican.

nohil-billy · #5 08.11.2008

It kills me that the NYTimes ran that story about McCain and the lobbyist with no proof whatsoever but wouldn't trust the Enquirer because it was a tabloid. As far as I'm concerned, the NYTimes is getting more tabloid like every day.

And let's not forget that John Edwards not only cheated, but in true Clintonian fashion, lied about it by accusing his accuser of lying.

Herb Schaffler · #6 08.11.2008

It has always amazed me how Democrats can watch the MSM and call it the "corporate media" being biased to the right. Polls have shown that the vast majority of the national MSM votes Democratic. That's why I havn't watched the MSM since the late 60's, because of their left wing bias. Ofcourse, Fox is just as biased to the right as the other networks are to the left. The only television news that I watch now is Kirin Chetry on CNN in the morning while I'm shaving. I think she's pretty objective and so is Robin Meade on CNN headline news. They are also easy on the eyes.

nohil-billy · #7 08.12.2008

I don't know about FNC being biased for the right. During the last election cycle when Bush ran against Kerry, a survey showed that even Fox had more positive stories about Kerry than they had about Bush. The disparity just wasn't as great as it was in the rest of the MSM. The fact that FNC will give the conservative point of view and let conservative guests make a point may make it seem like they have a bias because we're not used to seeing that.

The other day I turned on FNC and saw that Bozo governor from New Jersey and he was giving his point of view for quite a while. You can't get much more liberal than that idiot. Sometimes I think FNC goes too far trying to prove that they're fair and balanced.

ps: Herb, you are a dirty old man!

Herb Schaffler · #8 08.13.2008

I guess I should say that Fox tends to be pro-war. If there were any doubts about that, they were dispelled during the Republican debates when Chris Wallace made the snide comment to Ron Paul that Ron was somehow supporting the terrorists because of his opposition to the war in Iraq.

nohil-billy · #9 08.13.2008

Fox being pro-war is a subjective opinion. I know of a couple of Fox personalities who have voiced opinions against America ever getting involved in Iraq. Bill O'Reilly certainly has. And I've seen people like Bill Kristol, Britt Hume, and Tony Snow question the way the administration was executing the war. The only thing I haven't seen on Fox which I have seen on CNN, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, and NBC was people rooting for the other side or disparaging our troops. If you interpret that as pro-war Herb, so be it.

Back in the 60's and 70's when the liberals were whining about Viet Nam, one of the most popular conservative bumper stickers read "My Country Right or Wrong." What some people don't seem to understand is that if you're not rooting for us, there is only one other alternative. This liberal cr#p that they support the troops but not the war is simply that. CR#P!!!

To me, Fox is a professional news organization which reports what is happening with minimal editorializing, which they leave to the talk show hosts such as Hannity or O'Reilly.

Herb Schaffler · #10 08.14.2008

"What some people don't seem to understand is that if you're not rooting for us, there is only one other alternative."

Not true. You can disagree with your country's governmental policies, but still love your country. You can support the troops by calling for them to be pulled out of an unecessary war before anymore of them get killed or crippled. Judging on how more of our troops contributed to Ron Paul than all of the other Republican candidates combined and how Obama and Ron Paul were #1 and #2 respectively in contributions from our troops, I would say there are a large number of our troops who also don't support the war in Iraq. Are they un-American? Do they not support themselves?