See what others have said

Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.

Comments

1. #1
   On December 16th, 2007 at 9:37 pm, shooter said:

   Or she could just keep freaking out and melting down.

   I finally found SOMETHING I can vote for!

2. #2
   On December 16th, 2007 at 9:43 pm, brooklyn red said:

   The Dems. are going to have a hard time no matter who they offer up. They will be running against Bush, but the people will be voting against Congress.

   With the war no longer an issue, what do they have? Health care? They tried that once, but people have only become more educated since then… Higher taxes? yeah, always popular… Open borders/amnesty? not so much…

   Sure, they can offer the “black man” knowing he can’t win… but being able to claim the entire country is racist afterwards… priceless.

3. #3
   On December 16th, 2007 at 9:55 pm, brooklyn red said:

   Oppps! did I forget National Security & gun control…

   Yeah, the Dems have a winning platform for sure.

4. #4
   On December 16th, 2007 at 10:00 pm, BRY said:

   Hillarys losing Iowa and N.H. will cause the dems to dump her and questions about Obama’s electability will allow the dems to throw him under the bus and nominate Edwards who plays to the jury like the ambluance chaser he is

5. #5
   On December 16th, 2007 at 10:03 pm, blogagog said:

   “I think she’s going to take it,” Duluoz said of Clinton. “But I’m hoping she’ll ask him to be her VP [vice president]. I think together they could really rock it.”

   That’s been the problem these last 7 years. Instead of trying to fix problems, Bush should have spent more time “rockin’ it”. Hindsight 20/20, of course.

6. #6
   On December 16th, 2007 at 10:25 pm, trinitytim said:

   Clinton and Obama running together on a Democratic platform made of Jello. No solid position on anything.

   I like our odds.

7. #7
   On December 16th, 2007 at 11:22 pm, palani said:

   Laurie Dhue, the Fox fox, reported earlier today about Hillary’s “hil-icopter” invasion of poor Iowa, intended to bolster her slipping poll numbers. Should have called it her “hell-icopter” campaign.

8. #8
   On December 16th, 2007 at 11:34 pm, meatpieandtatters said:

   The Oprah effect is a chronic psychosis characterized by brief outbursts of hysteria, mostly in conjunction with wanton acts consumerism, and sycophantic praise for Oprah, which elicits additional praise and self-congratulation and an increase in her portfolio. It’s all about HER and the money.

9. #9
   On December 17th, 2007 at 12:34 am, BlameAmericaLast said:

   Maybe the Hillary campaign should spend less time freaking out and more time exploiting this weakness.

   Oh please, PLEASE keep freaking out. It’s just starting to get good.

   Someone hand me the popcorn.

10. #10
    On December 17th, 2007 at 12:57 am, nbarry said:

    The effect of this and the Romney thread is enough to make me believe that given the opportunity, voters in both party primaries would choose None of the Above.

11. #11
    On December 17th, 2007 at 3:14 am, WarTip said:

    a pin that read, “Mommy make the scary Republican go away.”

    And on the back?

    “And open the door for all of those nice Islamic Jihad tree hugger liberal freedom frighters who would respect us and our liberal belief system!”

    I wonder if we can get a bunch of conservatives to switch parties and vote in the democrat primaries or would that be illegal if we did that?

    Oh well, at least the meltdown is fun to watch. I hope that it leads to the proverbial implosion of her campaign though. What is so truly frightening is that this will actually be a close race no matter who the nominee is.

12. #12
    On December 17th, 2007 at 3:59 am, Prime Director said:

    Obama is more deserving of the nomination than Hillary.

    Obama is a former law school professor, while Hillary couldn’t even pass the bar exam on the first try.

    Obama has more experience as an elected official, going back to the State Senate in Illinois. Hillary is a first-term carpet-bagger.

    Obama hasn’t transgressed against the disproportionately powerful gay activist contingent in the Democratic Party; Former co-president Hillary, on the other hand, is responsible for the military’s current Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell policy.

    Obama was against the war from the get-go, while Hillary voted for the war. Not only that, given that she was co-president during the 90′s, she’s arguably partially responsible (from a moonbat perspective, naturally,) for the deaths of millions of iraqi children caused by the draconian US-backed UN sanctions.

    Hillary also gets credit for iraqi deaths resulting from Operation Desert Fox. She’s responsible for the civilian deaths associated with the aspirin factory attack in the Sudan, too. And she’s also responsible for civilian deaths arising from the war in Kosovo and the resulting never-ending US occupation.

    Obama’s nomination as the Democratic Candidate could be the kind of watershed moment that Goldwater’s was way back when. No, Goldwater didn’t win the election, but his nomination laid the foundation for the future greatness and continued dominance of his party.

    (think they’ll buy this?)

13. #13
    On December 17th, 2007 at 8:11 am, gayle said:

    Just pour water on her and be done with it.

    As of now, I have no idea who is worth voting for.

    Until illegal immigration is addressed and conquered, no one has my vote.

14. #14
    On December 17th, 2007 at 8:30 am, Boomer said:

    On December 17th, 2007 at 12:34 am, BlameAmericaLast said:
    Oh please, PLEASE keep freaking out. It’s just starting to get good.

    Someone hand me the popcorn.

    Rats! You beat me to it BlameAmericaLast. I guess great minds think a like.

15. #15
    On December 17th, 2007 at 12:34 pm, AlohaGuy said:

    gayle, check out Hunter