Clinton Raises $27 Million, Leads Obama

[ethics]

Clinton's campaign announced Tuesday that she raised $27 million from July through September, significantly outpacing chief rival Obama. The campaign boasted about the results in an e-mail to supporters that noted it was her best fundraising quarter yet. It's the first time she's dominated Obama, who raised $20 million in the same period and has given her an unexpectedly tight competition in the money race.

I think this race is over. Stick a fork in it. (http://breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8S14EK00&show_article=1)

1. She has experience.
2. She has the money
3. She has the political mind
4. She is more center than any of her rivals in the Democrat camp.

[tke711]

And polls in most States would back you up. Unless Clinton really screws up, or something big happens, I think it's safe to say that she will be the parties nomination.

Now for the real question: Is that a good thing for the party?

I'm not sure it is, because I'm not sure she can get elected to the big house. Of course, it will ultimately depend on who the Republican's put up against her.

[ethics]

Is that a good thing for the party?

I think it is. Many, in our own poll, backed her as well.

[tke711]

You're right, it would be good for the party in the sense that they are picking who the majority in their party want.

However, if "good for the party" is defined as winning the White House, I'm not sure her nomination gives them that.

[ethics]

However, if "good for the party" is defined as winning the White House, I'm not sure her nomination gives them that.

True. But it all depends who she will be running against.

[tke711]

Absolutely....and I think I even said that in my first post. ;)

[Techie2000]

This really is the story of the <a href="http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20060807&s=edsall080706">new progressives versus old Clinton establishment</a>. Like it or not, a lot of people have been disappointed with the Dean reign of the DNC, and yearn for a return to the Clinton years. I'm not big on Dean, I do believe philosophically with his 50-state strategy and such, but don't think he's the leader the party needs. Clinton is smart, and has the party connections, I would not be upset to see a return to the Clinton era in the party, but on a personal level am not a big fan of her for the nomination to President.

[Domh]

Clinton/Clark will make for a very interesting race against Thompson/?

[Violet1966]

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2007/10/clinton_reports.html

In money just for the primaries, Clinton still trails Obama with about $62 million total, compared to about $75 million for Obama. But she has raised nearly $18 million for the general election campaign, compared to about $4 million for Obama. Clinton also has $10 million she transferred from her US Senate account.



Do we know how much of Obama's own money he's added to the pot, if any?

[Stiofán]

Hillary will win the nomination because the Media has already anointed her and it's still early.

[Copzilla]

I'd rather see her get it than Obama. At least historically, the Clinton dynasty did not manage to completely socialize the country before. Bill started more left and went to center, and if Hillary follows suit, there are worse fates. *I* would certainly vote for her over Obama.

Interesting election.

[joseftu]

I think it's going to be Clinton vs. Giuliani. Two centrists, with both the left and the right holding their noses and making their choices.

The best thing for the country will be if the right stays home, in that scenario! Clinton would be better for all of us--especially with the possibility of several Supreme Court nominations--but Giuliani really would not be a disaster.

I don't think Thompson has even a vague shot at the nomination.

The ideal ticket for the Democrats would be Clinton/Obama--that's a sure win. But that's not very likely to happen.

[Steve]

I agree with you on every point except that Hillary would be better than Rudy.

[joseftu]

Well, that's why we need to have an election! (But I wonder if you feel, as I do about Giuliani, that Clinton would not be a disaster?)

[ethics]

The best thing for the country will be if the right stays home, in that scenario! Clinton would be better for all of us--especially with the possibility of several Supreme Court nominations--but Giuliani really would not be a disaster.

I am closer to that myself. Except I would switch and say that Hillary would not be a disaster people here (or in American right) fear.

[Techie2000]

Guiliani recently released a <a href="http://www.joinrudy2008.com/article/pr/831">strategy memo</a> detailing his position in the primary and general race. What is also interesting, are <a href="http://www.politico.com/static/PPM43_071002_gopvhrc_maps.html">these maps</a> obtained by Politico that show a lot of states being put into play if we get a Guiliani/Clinton race.

[ethics]

So what you are saying is that Rudy would be a clear winner?

[Steve]

(But I wonder if you feel, as I do about Giuliani, that Clinton would not be a disaster?)Clinton would not be a disaster, but neither do I feel she'd be a very effectual President. There is still far too much paternalism in Congress for a female President to get much done, I think. Not agreeing with that, just calling it like I see it.

[Violet1966]

I could be wrong, but I don't think the Americans who will vote, will vote for Clinton. I also so don't think they'll vote for Obama either. I think Giuliani has a very good chance at the Presidency if he's up against Obama or Clinton.

[Steve]

Sexism and racism will no doubt be major undeclared candidates in this election.

[Techie2000]

So what you are saying is that Rudy would be a clear winner?Not necesarily. He still is going to have to put up a fight, it's just that those states will be in play, whereas before they would not be. Hillary is smart, it's why she's beating the rest of the field right now. I'd say a likely winner.

[Violet1966]

Sexism and racism will no doubt be major undeclared candidates in this election.

Yup. It would be nice if it wasn't, but it is what it is. As ugly as it is, it will continue to be that way. Watch. My bet, cold day in hell before an African American or a Woman is President. I wish I didn't think this, but I don't think our country is ready for either yet. As vice yes. I see it. The Democratic party knows this too I'm sure.

[Domh]

The ideal ticket for the Democrats would be Clinton/Obama...

I think that is a sure LOSS... which is why is will not happen.

America might elect a woman for POTUS. They might... MIGHT elect an African-American.

I think racism is stronger than sexism in this country.

I think there is no chance in HELL the electorate would pull the lever for a woman and a black man.

MHO YMMV

[SixofNine]

There's a group of voters who are virulently anti-Clinton, but I have no idea how large that group is. Some of it is transference from Slick Willie, but some of it is also the recollection that Hillary was a major force behind the Clinton administration's public-sector-heavy attempt at health care reform.

I just drove to/from NJ on a business trip, and in my 10 hours or so of radio listening I heard a story about a group of right-wing republicans (Richard A. Viguerie was mentioned by name) who are considering a split if the Republicans nominate a moderate. Once again, I have no idea how large this movement is.

Viguerie pointed out the electoral success of conservative Republican candidates (Reagan, Bush 43), and the failures of moderates (1960's Nixon, Ford, Dole, Bush 41). I see a lot of exceptions and caveats to that conclusion (e.g., Goldwater 1964), but I'm just relaying this group's thinking.

[Steve]

So, what you're saying is that Michael Jackson, a former black man who is now a white woman, would never be able to be elected President? :nut:

[joseftu]

I heard a story about a group of right-wing republicans (Richard A. Viguerie was mentioned by name) who are considering a split if the Republicans nominate a moderate.
Oh, I hope they do that! Nothing could be sweeter than to have the right fail to see the lesson of Ralph Nader. :)

[tke711]

Ya, if they do a split, ala Ross Perot, the Democrats will win the White House for sure.

[SixofNine]

Here's the story (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=14869664) I heard on NPR.

[Violet1966]

I think Guilliani, even though his recent change in stance on gun control, which actually is in his favor, has a great chance to win.

Hey, what would we call "Mr. bj isn't sex Willy" if he was the husband of the President? The First Gentleman?

[Domh]

The First Gentleman?

Yup.

Frankly, he would do a fantastic job in the position.

[Violet1966]

Would he be elligable to be her Vice, I wonder? Or does the possibility of his having to serve as Pres in event of death, and his already having 8 years in (two terms), rule him out?

[tke711]

He's ruled out because of the requirements of VP is that you meet all the eligibility requirements to be President, which Bill Clinton no longer does since he served two terms.

[Violet1966]

That's what I thought. You know if she gets in there, he's going to be more active than your average Presidential spouse is.

[MNeedham73]

he's going to be more active than your average Presidential spouse is.

Nah...too easy ;)

[SixofNine]

He's ruled out because of the requirements of VP is that you meet all the eligibility requirements to be President, which Bill Clinton no longer does since he served two terms.

It's not a cut and dried case, and people who make a living worrying about such things are far from a consensus:

A subsequent sampling of opinion from professors of constitutional law, former White House lawyers and even a couple of federal judges reveals a simmering disagreement on whether a president who has already served two terms can be vice president.


Good WaPo article on the topic. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/19/AR2006101901572.html)

A note by Slate. (http://www.slate.com/id/1006013/)


Some take the position that the 22nd Amendment only prevents a two-term president from being elected to the Presidency again.

[Violet1966]

OK see so there's a reason I was wondering that then. I couldn't recall ever learning a Vice couldn't be a former President or I must have subconsciously been remembering this controversial situation.

[Kangaroo]

The size of the anti-Clinton electorate is measurable by the lack of a Clinton popular vote majority in two national elections. Given a choice between Bush, Perot, and Clinton more people chose Bush or Perot. Between Dole, Clinton, and Perot, more people voted for Dole and Perot. Being anti-Clinton, I can tell you the distaste for the husband is equalled by the distaste for the wife. Also, she has fantastically more skeletons in her closet than did Kerry and look how easy he was to defeat with a few items from thirty years in the past and an unpopular incumbent. A Clinton nomination is a death knell for Democrat Whitehouse dreams. Thus, I welcome it.

[Violet1966]

Yeah but don't you think it's amazing no one is really talking about her bullshit? I mean, why aren't there more ads and stuff talking about the bad things she's related to. The Whiteater thing and her being appointed by her hubby to come up with healthcare that works and continuously failing to find a solution, are two of them I can think of. She's got pull with her party, but why aren't the republicans really letting her have it on these points?

I guess there's still time to see the truths come out. I'm really surprised we aren't seeing it yet. I guess republicans don't want the rep of being ruthless or something?

[MNeedham73]

I've a feeling the republicans are just waiting for now. When/if she is nominated, I'm sure they'll be trotting out Whitewater, FileGate, the healthcare thing, and anything else she was tied to during Bill's presidency.

In other words, they are conserving ammunition for later.

[Copzilla]

Yep, that will be the tactic, still it's all old news, and nothing surprising. Filegate is just Washington politics, nothing to get worked up about. Whitewater? American business as usual. Now to me, the healthcare nationalization effort is a big problem, but I don't think it will ever pass, so...

[joseftu]

I've a feeling the republicans are just waiting for now. When/if she is nominated, I'm sure they'll be trotting out Whitewater, FileGate, the healthcare thing, and anything else she was tied to during Bill's presidency.
In other words, they don't have any ammunition! ;)

If that's the list they've got to hit her with, then I'm sure she's saying "bring it on." Those are all old news, and didn't even amount to much when they were actually current. The voters have heard all those, and if the Republicans trot out that same old tired rubbish again, it's going to get nothing but a giant yawn.

(EDIT--wow, Copzilla and me posting simultaneously, with almost the same point! What a world! :))

[Violet1966]

Oh on the contrary. There's plenty of ammo left. It's just been hidden in the closet for a while now.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whitewater_(controversy)

Reaction of the Clintons
On January 26, 1996, Hillary Clinton testified before a grand jury concerning her investments in Whitewater. She noted they never borrowed any money from the bank, nor had they caused anyone to borrow money on their behalf. Over the course of the investigation, fifteen individuals — including Clinton friends Jim McDougal and Susan McDougal, White House counsel Webster Hubbell and Arkansas Governor Jim Guy Tucker — were convicted of federal charges unrelated to Whitewater. Clinton pardoned four of them in the final hours of his presidency (see list of people pardoned by Bill Clinton).



Convictions
Ultimately the Clintons were never charged, but 14 other persons were convicted of more than 40 crimes, including a sitting Governor who was forced to resign. *.[31]

Jim Guy Tucker: Governor of Arkansas at the time, forced to resign (fraud, 3 counts)
John Haley: attorney for Jim Guy Tucker (tax fraud)
William J. Marks Sr.: Jim Guy Tucker business partner (conspiracy)
Stephen Smith (Whitewater): former Governor Clinton aide (conspiracy to misapply funds). Bill Clinton pardoned.
Webster Hubbell: Clinton political supporter; Rose Law Firm partner (embezzlement, fraud)
Jim McDougal: banker, Clinton political supporter: (18 felonies, varied)
Susan McDougal: Clinton political supporter (multiple fraud, , contempt of court)
David Hale: banker, self proclaimed Clinton political supporter: (conspiracy, fraud)
Neal Ainley: Perry County Bank president (embezzled bank funds for Clinton campaign)
Chris Wade: Whitewater real estate broker (multiple loan fraud) Bill Clinton pardoned.
Larry Kuca: Madison real estate agent (multiple loan fraud)
Robert Palmer: Madison appraiser (conspiracy). Bill Clinton pardoned.
John Latham: Madison Bank CEO (bank fraud)
Eugene Fitzhugh: Whitewater defendant (multiple bribery)
Charles Matthews (Whitewater): Whitewater defendant (bribery)


Tax returns
In March 1992, during his presidential campaign, the Clinton's acknowledged that on their 1984 and 1985 tax returns, they had claimed improper tax deductions for interest payments made by the Whitewater Development Company and not them personally.[32] Due to the age of mistake, the Clinton's were not obligated to make good the error, but Bill Clinton announced that they would.[32]

Almost two years then passed before, on December 28, 1993, the Clinton's did make this reimbursement payment, for $4,900, to the Internal Revenue Service. This was done just before Justice Department investigators started seeking the Clinton's' Whitewater files. The payment was made without filing an amended return (possibly because the three-year period for amended return filing had passed), but did include full interest on the amount in error, including the additional two-year delay.[32] The Whitewater files in question, publicly released in August 1995, cast some doubt on the Clinton's' assertions in the matter, as they showed that the couple were aware that the interest payments in question were by the Whitewater corporation and not them personally.[32]



Both Hillary and Bill got through the White House era by the skin of their weebles. Yes Hillary has weebles too, even though she's a female. I think.

Conspiracy, organized crime, perjury, impeachment, tax evasion, refusal to submit evidence, suicides. Denial of any criminal involvement with a certain group, sworn testimony, then the pardon of them. There's a ton of bullshit that people need to remember when thinking about voting for Hillary.

She's been doing damage control, with the votes to make the republicans of this country forget the past, during her time in the Senate. Make nice-nice with the right people. Hope for forgive and forget. There's a lot of people out there that will never forget the Clinton Presidency.

In my own view, the Clinton's were what is wrong with this country. They symbolize it. Such disgrace as the Lewinsky thing (Bill perjuring himself the way he did), has proven to me that she is more of a political/business partner with Bill, than just a loving and very strong wife and mother of his child. They have got to have a similar game plan, and common interests in politics, if they are together the way they are. Those two brains are one. They both want the same thing, and will get it in the same manner. People thinking the way I do, will hurt Hillary.

Her health care thing is what she's running with. She's had a loooong time to devise this one. She's calling for health care for all, with people keeping their insurance if they wish. That was what was opposed to much with the universal health care she was trying to devise before, that it would force people into a system that was overburdened. She's come up with what she thinks is a happy medium, and that's her pitch. She's hoping all their indiscretions will be overlooked in a time of crisis, where health care is more important than ever before to people, where it wasn't as much an issue before. On the state level, spending has been cut with Medicaid, in many places. The income guidelines raised, leaving many people without health care. This just happened in NH. A proposal to change guidelines to include more children in health care plans supplemented by the state, was voted down.

That healthcare plan she's pushing is her only hope. She might not even really get the vote of the younger Dems who can vote now, who won't remember the Clinton era. They will know she voted for us to go to Iraq, and not vote for her.

That's what I think, at least.

[Copzilla]

Such disgrace as the Lewinsky thing (Bill perjuring himself the way he did), has proven to me that she is more of a political/business partner with Bill, than just a loving and very strong wife and mother of his child. They have got to have a similar game plan, and common interests in politics, if they are together the way they are. Those two brains are one. They both want the same thing, and will get it in the same manner. People thinking the way I do, will hurt Hillary.

Actually, this isn't quite right. Anybody with intimate knowledge of the Clintons report that Hillary was deeply stung by the Lewinsky affair, and had to come to grips with her love for Bill Clinton, and forgave him. It also brought Bill closer to her, as he regretted hurting her so badly.

What I hear about the Clintons is that they do love each other very much, despite Bill's former dalliances, and that he has committed to being a faithful husband.

I don't hate the Clintons for things like this. I'm concerned our country is being pushed more and more toward a European model of socialism, which is NOT better than our capitalistic society. I'm concerned that degrading the work/reward system will eventually bring us down as the predominant world economic power. To that end, I fight things like health care socialization, support welfare reform and work / job training programs. Hillary tends to pander too much for my tastes, and will vote for a fiscal conservative over her because of this.

[Violet1966]

In her position, it wouldn't have been in her best interests, or her husband's, or the Nation's, if she left him. I hope they really are in love. The feeling I always got of them, was that they were political partners and partners in crime.

[Sierra Mike]

My view on Clinton was expressed very well in NEWSWEEK, of all places. Of course, they were speaking of Republican Mitt Romney:

For all his strengths, however, Romney has been unable to shake his authenticity problem, the sense that he is a glossy and robotic candidate who will say anything to get elected and believes nothing in his heart.

Replace Romney's name with Clinton, and that pretty much sums up my feelings. I think she's a rapacious opportunist, and will do anything to anyone to get what she wants.

SM

[Violet1966]

I'm really confused who I actually think could take this one at this point.

The only thing I can think of as a negative to Guiliani, is his past and the way he dumped his ex wife. And don't think it's not already being talked about by Hillary's people. She's got some nerve to talk about marital problems. http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/09/20/top-clinton-advisor-blasts-giulianis-personal-life/

The mud isn't being slung all that bad right now, but this is going to get ugly. Guiliani also has had cancer.

Romney might have a good chance. I was surprised to see he was up there with my interests, when doing that quiz thing. He and Guiliani were equal on points I found important. Not that I'm any kind of gauge at all, but with other republicans I know who aren't radical, his interests are kind of the same. He's got any skeletons I wonder?

He is rather mechanical. Like a political machine. It is kind of creepy, but he's handsome. LOL

[Domh]

Clinton/Clark vs. Thompson/Romney

Right now thats the race I see.

[joseftu]

She's got some nerve to talk about marital problems.
Hillary's got some nerve? Her marriage problems weren't her fault. Giuliani had an affair while still married with young kids. Then he dumped his wife without even telling her ahead of time, in a press conference. That's not even mentioning his first marriage, to his second cousin.

Not that any of that should be relevant at all--in either case. But it will be. And it will be used. :(

[Violet1966]

No it wasn't her fault that we know of. I've never heard of anything saying it was her fault. Her fault is that she was made a fool of twice in front of a nation, and stuck by this cheating man of hers. She let's people use her as a doormat they'll say. Watch. That and her vote to go into the war are going to be against her.

To tell you the truth, what you said about Guiliani is what I don't like about him. To me, that says a lot about his character. When that mud starts to sling seriously, he's gonna be very sorry he ever did it. I know he did a lot of good for NYC. I saw the change with my own eyes when I lived in the area, but that thing with his ex wife was something I never expected of him. It changed my views of him from there on. I really couldn't care less about his marrying his first cousin. To me, that's not important. If he'd married his sister, then I'd be more freaked out. LOL

Not really much dirt on Obama so far. The one thing he has going against him, if his lack of foreign policy experience. Of course there will be people who won't vote for him because he's black as well. As ugly as it sounds, it's true. Also, there's going to be a lot of voters who might not vote for Hillary simply because she's a female.

[Copzilla]

Not really much dirt on Obama so far. The one thing he has going against him, if his lack of foreign policy experience.

That and he's an extreme left socialist, the latter of which I find to be much more important.

[MNeedham73]

Just wait, Vio...there is already some very minor stuff about Obama (http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/124171,CST-NWS-obama05.article) that probably hasn't made national news (not that I've seen anyway), but it's pretty well known around IL.

[Copzilla]

Looks like a whole bunch of nothing.

[jfcjrus]

Actually, this isn't quite right. Anybody with intimate knowledge of the Clintons report that Hillary was deeply stung by the Lewinsky affair, and had to come to grips with her love for Bill Clinton, and forgave him. It also brought Bill closer to her, as he regretted hurting her so badly.

What I hear about the Clintons is that they do love each other very much, despite Bill's former dalliances, and that he has committed to being a faithful husband.
Whew, I'm rather flabergasted; do you really BELIEVE one iota of what you just posted?
Because I DON'T, NOT A BIT!

But, God Bless you if you do; you've more Faith in selfserving lying sackofshit politicians than I.

Regards, ;)

[Violet1966]

Just wait, Vio...there is already some very minor stuff about Obama (http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/124171,CST-NWS-obama05.article) that probably hasn't made national news (not that I've seen anyway), but it's pretty well known around IL.

Well I'm sure it will come up if Whitewater gets flung around. It's really nothing in comparison though. I'm sure it will be a reason, for people who need a reason not to vote for him though.

To me, he still smells like a daisy compared to Clinton.

[MNeedham73]

Like I said, it's very minor. But, it'll be used as ammunition, I'm sure. If for nothing else, to try to show that he makes bad decisions. I'm sure his cocaine use will come up again also.

[Steve]

Clinton/Clark vs. Thompson/RomneyPee-yew! Who farted?

[joseftu]

I'm sure his cocaine use will come up again also.
I think we've really passed the point where that kind of thing makes a difference. It certainly didn't hurt Bush.

[MNeedham73]

I don't recall Bush ever admitting to it either.

[joseftu]

No, but do you know anyone who actually doubts that he did it? He said that he never used illegal drugs after 1974, but he refused to say whether that meant he had used any before 1974. (I suppose that's better than "I didn't inhale!").

I think that Obama's admission won't hurt him at all--might even help. Honest admission rather than transparent stonewalling (Bush) or pathetic weaseling (Clinton).

[Violet1966]

LOL he probably did what Clinton did and didn't inhale. ;)

[Copzilla]

Whew, I'm rather flabergasted; do you really BELIEVE one iota of what you just posted?
Because I DON'T, NOT A BIT!

But, God Bless you if you do; you've more Faith in selfserving lying sackofshit politicians than I.

Regards, ;)

Sure I do. Everyone needs someone to love. Even the trash in Washington.

If I'm going to disapprove of a politician, it's going to be for more than whether someone is around their spouse for love or external reasons. It's going to be for their policies, and what they'd do for the country.

http://blogs.chron.com/nickanderson/archives/and100407blog.jpg

[Violet1966]

You wanna talk using 9/11 to get ahead in this race? Well she's done it. TV commercial showing her wearing a mask, says "she stood by ground zero rescuers throughout the rescue".

[Copzilla]

Yeah, so has Rudy. It's bluster. Where's the talk on policies?

[Violet1966]

I haven't seen Rudy's yet. I did just see McCain's though. Shows his pow days and then his walking with Reagan.

Keeping eyes peeled for Giuliani's. Yeah you'd think they'd talk about the issues instead of this stupid stuff. But the ads look like it's getting heated now. I think this is the beginning of all the going for the throats. Should be interesting.

[joseftu]

Giuliani may not be doing TV ads in Maine (in fact, I'm surprised that Hillary did. I would think Maine's a sure win for her).

[Violet1966]

I'm seeing Romney, McCain, and Clinton. Not really much of anything else, or I'm not remembering.

[Copzilla]

Didn't mean a commercial, but he has referred to 9-11. To me, it's all a big yawner. They're playing on emo and not substance. Where's the beef?

[jfcjrus]

{snip} I think this is the beginning of all the going for the throats. Should be interesting.
There ya go.;)
Shit, it's what, A YEAR before any of us get to vote for our next President?

How many voters (citizens) are paying any attention to this stuff that far in advance of the event?
Of course the MEDIA is filling airtime, but I suspect most folks couldn't care less about this stuff, YET.

Let's see what the polls say next summer; when things really get ugly and interesting. ;)
That's when folks will get involved.
This early; it's a media event, nothing more.

There's LOTS of time left, for TODAY'S political darlings to screw it all up. ;)

Regards,

[mikepd]

Clinton/Clark vs. Thompson/Romney

Right now thats the race I see.

I think you need to see an optometrist. Clark's ego would never let him take second string even on the off chance he might get a shot at being President either after a Clinton term or due to some other reason. I also do not see her picking him for roughly the same reason. She is going to want someone who she can work with, not someone who possibly dislikes her, wants her job, and does not think she is even better than Bill.


As for the Republicans, they would be smart to get behind Giuliani for President as he has a wider appeal base among Independents as well as Republicans according to the polls I have seen.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/08/10/gop.poll/index.html#cnnSTCText

[Swamp Fox]

The Economist has noted that, if Hillary wins, (http://economist.com/opinion/displayStory.cfm?Story_ID=9905590) it'll be a leap-frog situation of the Bush Presidency followed by the Clinton Presidency followed by the Bush Presidency followed by the Clinton Presidency. In that case, I'd like to see Jeb Bush run and be President, heh heh heh.

[Steve]

Sooooo....you hate America is what I'm hearing? ;)

[Swamp Fox]

Sooooo....you hate America is what I'm hearing? ;)

Not at all - I wanna run for President, remember?