PDA

View Full Version : GAME ON! First Hillary Clinton Ad for '12!



Apocalypse
09-03-2010, 01:30 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yt1puizrv4A

PoliCon
09-03-2010, 02:16 PM
oy vey.

AmPat
09-03-2010, 02:24 PM
All I can take from this is that even DIMs can see the writing on the wall. The only votes O Blah Blah will get will be the Black (racist), moonbat liberal and complete political moron-idiot vote.

Politically educated and thinking individuals will not vote for this imposter again. They were fooled last time by a perfect political storm and smooth oratory. I don't believe it will work again.

Chuck58
09-03-2010, 02:26 PM
Why am I not surprised? The Clintons just won't go away.

Odysseus
09-03-2010, 03:01 PM
This ad could be fun to rebut: The janitors have more experience working in the White House, but that doesn't mean that they're qualified to be president.

If Hillary is the nominee in 2012, expect enraged black Democrats to sit on her hands, if not completely bolt the party. They won't necessarily go Republican, but they may go Green or some other third party, which would still leave the Democrats with about 10% less of the electorate, and it would be a long grudge. They'd be smarter, if more cynical, to take the hit, go down in flames with Obama and then keep spinning the lie that the country that elected a black man was too racist to reelect him. At least that way, they'd keep enough of their coalition together to recover, but a permanent estrangement from blacks will doom them for a generation.

Chuck58
09-03-2010, 03:09 PM
I'll say this, and call me racist or bigoted if you want.

I think after this guy leaves office, in Jan 2013, it'll be a long, long time before another Black ever sits in the Oval Office. That's Dear Leader's contribution to race relations.

Arroyo_Doble
09-03-2010, 04:16 PM
In January of 1991 unemployment sat at 6.4%, Democrats took a modest 7 seats from Republicans in the House, and Bush's approval rating was over 80%

In 1992 he lost the election.

In January of 1983 unemployment sat at 10.4%, Democrats had just poached 27 seats from the Republicans in the House, and Reagan's approval rating had hit a low of 35%.

I do not see his monstrous electoral victory in 1984 being repeated in our lifetimes.

Predicting the outcome of 2012 this far out is difficult.

Chuck58
09-03-2010, 05:11 PM
Predicting the outcome for 2012 is impossible.

Right now, I don't see a Republican standout. I can see any number who can beat Dear Leader right now, if the election was held today. Hell, I could probably give a good showing against him today, just using talking points from a few Conservative sites.

2012 is still just too far off. But, I can dream, and hope, and pray that if he runs again he goes down hard.

Molon Labe
09-03-2010, 07:16 PM
This is hilarious. The big O monster must seem pretty vulnerable from her constituents perspective. With all the mess going on, she has no chance to win the POTUS, assuming she could even unseat his majesty.

PoliCon
09-03-2010, 07:18 PM
2012 is her last chance. she'll be way to old and helen thomas NASTY if she has to wait til 2016.

Odysseus
09-03-2010, 08:15 PM
Predicting the outcome of 2012 this far out is difficult.
This may be the first thing that you've said that I agree with.

This is hilarious. The big O monster must seem pretty vulnerable from her constituents perspective. With all the mess going on, she has no chance to win the POTUS, assuming she could even unseat his majesty.
There's certainly some buyer's remorse. It's not simply that Obama's policies are wretched, it's that he is genuinely unable to connect to people who oppose him. Bill Clinton would have "felt our pain," bitten his lip and managed to convince, if not the opposition, at least enough of his own side to stay the course. Obama has rendered himself toxic, not just because of his positions, but his contempt for the American people and his arrogance have become so obvious that he's even turning off his own side.

2012 is her last chance. she'll be way to old and helen thomas NASTY if she has to wait til 2016.
The electorate won't necessarily judge a female candidate on her looks. I would never otherwise include Hillary Clinton and Margaret Thatcher in the same sentence, much less compare them, but Thatcher was no beauty, and was hardly a young woman when she became Prime Minister. Of course, if she runs against Palin, Hillary will need to make herself over, but between the Hollywood crowd and the various other means at the disposal of the DNC, they can make anyone physically attractive enough to pass muster if the cameras are kept far enough back, the lighting is right and the makeup and botox are thick enough. Of course, Thatcher didn't need movie star looks, she had substance.

PoliCon
09-03-2010, 09:56 PM
The electorate won't necessarily judge a female candidate on her looks. I would never otherwise include Hillary Clinton and Margaret Thatcher in the same sentence, much less compare them, but Thatcher was no beauty, and was hardly a young woman when she became Prime Minister. Of course, if she runs against Palin, Hillary will need to make herself over, but between the Hollywood crowd and the various other means at the disposal of the DNC, they can make anyone physically attractive enough to pass muster if the cameras are kept far enough back, the lighting is right and the makeup and botox are thick enough. Of course, Thatcher didn't need movie star looks, she had substance.

We're talking about democrats here . . . . people who vote based on superficial appearances not substance - proven by their current leader.