Thursday, December 20, 2007

Which Candidate Would Be The Worst For America, if Elected?

December 20, 2007

Right In A Left World visitors and readers have expressed their opinion.

In an unscientific poll I placed up, 181 responded. Of the 181 responders, 101, 55% chose Hillary Clinton as who would be the worst for America if elected.

John Edwards was second with 42 votes, 23%. Ron Paul was next with 26 votes, 14%. Losing the poll, actually a good thing in this one, was Barack Obama with 12 votes, 6%.

My thanks to all who voted.

6 comments:

Lonsdale said...

Tom Tancredo gone? I cannot believe it. I am still waiting for a powerhouse performance from Duncan Hunter in Iowa and New Hampshire as he pulls out all the stops. There will then be a new day in American politics.

Lew Waters said...

lonzie, whatever Hunter does, the media tends to ignore him. They didn't even cover all the efforts he made at diverting aerial tankers to fight the fires in California a couple months ago.

Personally, I think it is a deliberate black out of major news on him, even when he deserves it.

StormWarning said...

Despite his positions on immigration, Duncan Hunter hasn't got a chance of being on the ticket, let alone being the Presidential nominee (in my opinion of course).

Lew Waters said...

StormWarning, as long as so many voters rely on the lamestream media to tell them who is the most popular, you are right.

I am amazed that in this day and age of internet access that so many still fall into the manipulative trap laid out by the lamestream media, the very same lamestream media they don't trust to accurately report on the war.

In the primaries every candidate should be viable and receive coverage. But, they have already made their choices to put a weak candidate up against Hillary, who they have been fawning over for years.

Vision vs. Pandering: Why Duncan Hunter is the ONLY choice – Part 1

Many Republicans openly admit that Hunter has the best and strongest message, yet refuse to get behind him ..... because the media tells them others aren't.

None has yet to tell me where is platform and message is lacking.

Gary Fouse said...

Bill Clinton outdid himself again this week when he referred to his wife, Hillary Rodham Clinton, as a "world class genius" who has made the lives of so many people better. It seems the Clinton camp is going for the shotgun approach since recent attacks on Barack Obama seem to be having a negative effect on Hillary's ratings. In addition to Bill's blustering, Hillary is now engaged in what many are referring to as her "charm offensive". Have you noticed in recent speaking engagements that her voice is softer and her decibles lowered? Attempting to reverse two decades of establishing her image as one of cold, ruthless ambition, she is now smiling and laughing (cackling actually) and generally trying to portray an image of warmth.

So which is it? Is she the second coming of Albert Einstein or the second coming of Mary Poppins? Is she the tough cookie who can stand up to and take the measure of Mehmoud Ahmadinejad, Kim Jung Il, Vladimir Putin and Osama bin Laden? Or is she the poor defenseless female who is being ganged up on by her male Democratic rivals, evil Republicans and the Media? Well, she did tell the Daily Kos convention several weeks ago that she had stood up to Bill O'Reilly. That should be worth some points in somebody's eyes. She then followed it up by playing the victim card when people jumped on her for her disastrous answer to the drivers licenses for illegal aliens question at the Philadelphia debate. Then, after her spokespeople starting floating stories about Obama scheming his presidential bid when he was in kindergarten, questioning whether he was a closet Muslim and beginning his presidential campaign on his frst day in the Senate (in stark contrast to Hillary and all her years of "experience") with negative results, now it's Mrs Nice Guy, er Lady.

Undoubtedly, her advisors believe that there are enough dummies out there who will think, "Gee, she's not so bad after all!", that this can change the public perception of her. I, for one, believe that Mrs Clinton's image is well established and not subject to change. After all, she has worked very hard all these years to show the country who she is. There are few things harder to undo than a "bad jacket", (bad reputation) as we used to say in law enforcement. Are there really many folks out there who don't have an opinion on Hillary Rodham Clinton? If anything, it seems that she is losing support from those on the left who see her as too establishment and not prepared to make the drastic changes they want to see. Of course, many of Hillary's supporters are confident that she is only playing a game to win over moderates and undecideds. Once she is in office, they say, she will do all the "right things". I think they are correct.

It seems that Mrs Clinton is walking down the same trail that Al Gore and John Kerry walked when they were running (re-inventing themselves). I can't see it working. Can it actually be that even Democrats are getting sick of her and all her phoniness?

And more thing: If anyone reading this thinks that Hillary has changed your life in any way, I sure would like to hear from you.

gary fouse
fousesquawk

StormWarning said...

Whether the "traditional" media is a measure of popularity or acceptance, is less important than what happens in the polling booth. Tancredo had a strong message as well (especially on immigration) and he's gone now.

If what you're saying is valid, then it is the traditional 2-party system that will soon fade away as well. No, we cannot allow the "traditional" media to shape our opinions. But it is also up to the marginal candidates to gain the support of those who can help them get their messages to a broader audience. That isn't happening.

You see, at this point, I am anti-Rudy, to wit (one among many posts in my anti-Rudy series): Positioning for the VEEP Nomination

SW <====not a "good" (enough) conservative, but definitely a Republican (in search of a candidate who can be elected).