Author Topic: L.A. Times: Hillary No Longer Front-runner (Read 2083 times)

Dos Equis · « **on:** April 09, 2007, 08:46:09 AM »

Uh oh. . . .

Monday, April 9, 2007 11:12 a.m. EDT
L.A. Times: Hillary No Longer Front-runner
Hillary Clinton is no longer the clear front-runner in the race for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2008 – and former Republican favorite John McCain has dropped to third in fund-raising among GOP candidates.

"A year ago there was a clear Clinton scenario, a clear McCain scenario” for winning the nominations, Stuart Rothenberg, publisher of a nonpartisan campaign newsletter in Washington, told the Los Angeles Times.

Clinton set a fund-raising record with $26 million in contributions in the first quarter of this year. But that figure barely surpassed the $25 million raised by opponent Barack Obama – and his money came from twice as many donors compared to Hillary.

Clinton strategist Howard Wolfson played down concerns about Hillary losing the front-runner status, telling the Times: "I’ve never used that word. We focus on running our campaign. I’ll leave the prognostications to others.”

Clinton now trails John Edwards in the polls in Iowa, the first caucus state.

On the Republican side, John McCain has raised $12.5 for his campaign, but Mitt Romney has collected nearly $21 million and Rudolph Giuliani has received $15 in donations.

Alan Abramowitz, a political science professor at Emory University, told the Times: "I don’t see a clear front-runner for the Republicans, simply because I think all of them have serious liabilities in terms of appealing to Republican primary voters.”

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2007/4/9/111449.shtml?s=ic

Hedgehog · « **Reply #1 on:** April 09, 2007, 08:50:47 AM »

Republicans needs to cut the fcuking crap and get with Giuliani ASAP.

Democrats needs to do the same with Edwards. Edwards and Obama is a good ticket. Giuliani's best running mate would be a guy like Powell, but that ain't happening.

-Hedge

Colossus_500 · « **Reply #2 on:** April 09, 2007, 08:52:53 AM »

Uh oh!

Awwwwwww sukysukynow!!!

Tre · « **Reply #3 on:** April 09, 2007, 09:30:08 AM »

The Bible Belt will not support a Mormon, period.

Middle America will not support a Black or a woman, period.

Old_Rooster · « **Reply #4 on:** April 09, 2007, 09:35:52 AM »

Quote from: Tre on April 09, 2007, 09:30:08 AM

The Bible Belt will not support a Mormon, period.

Middle American will not support a Black or a woman, period.

damn right we won't. no mormon, female or black...Just the way it is....right or wrong, the way it is...

OzmO · « **Reply #5 on:** April 09, 2007, 10:14:30 AM »

Quote from: Tre on April 09, 2007, 09:30:08 AM

The Bible Belt will not support a Mormon, period.

Middle American will not support a Black or a woman, period.

this is true.

George Stinky Bush · « **Reply #6 on:** April 09, 2007, 10:48:45 AM »

Quote from: Old_Rooster on April 09, 2007, 09:35:52 AM

damn right we won't. no mormon, female or black...Just the way it is....right or wrong, the way it is...

you support retards instead

240 is Back · « **Reply #7 on:** April 09, 2007, 03:45:08 PM »

Gore/Edwards.

make Clinton an ambassador to something.

Tre · « **Reply #8 on:** April 09, 2007, 04:23:41 PM »

Quote from: 240 is Back on April 09, 2007, 03:45:08 PM

Gore/Edwards.

Do you honestly think Gore is electable?

240 is Back · « **Reply #9 on:** April 09, 2007, 04:31:12 PM »

Quote from: Tre on April 09, 2007, 04:23:41 PM

Do you honestly think Gore is electable?

Yes.

Money isn't a problem. He is everything anti-Bush. He has dignity while Obama and Hilary tear each other apart. He just won an oscar protecting our world on the right side of the biggest eco worry.

If the Supreme Court would have let FL recount their votes in 2000, he would have won. And, as 9/11 becomes a bigger and bigger question mark, Gore has made some angry comments about Bush knowing it was going to happen and not acting, and has said it needs to be investigated.

I hated Gore in 2000. Doesn't look like such a bad option now, especially as these clowns destroy each other before the primaries.

Hugo Chavez · « **Reply #10 on:** April 10, 2007, 05:47:51 AM »

Quote from: 240 is Back on April 09, 2007, 03:45:08 PM

Gore/Edwards.

make Clinton an ambassador to something.

YESSSSSSSS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Hugo Chavez · « **Reply #11 on:** April 10, 2007, 05:48:31 AM »

Quote from: Tre on April 09, 2007, 04:23:41 PM

Do you honestly think Gore is electable?

YESSSSSSS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! HE ALREADY WAS ELECTED!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Old_Rooster · « **Reply #12 on:** April 10, 2007, 06:14:35 AM »

I heard hillary had sex in her senate office and she is a squirter, apparently she squirted all over his BLUE suit!

Tre · « **Reply #13 on:** April 10, 2007, 06:31:31 AM »

Quote from: 240 is Back on April 09, 2007, 04:31:12 PM

Yes.

Money isn't a problem. He is everything anti-Bush. He has dignity while Obama and Hilary tear each other apart. He just won an oscar protecting our world on the right side of the biggest eco worry.

If the Supreme Court would have let FL recount their votes in 2000, he would have won. And, as 9/11 becomes a bigger and bigger question mark, Gore has made some angry comments about Bush knowing it was going to happen and not acting, and has said it needs to be investigated.

I hated Gore in 2000. Doesn't look like such a bad option now, especially as these clowns destroy each other before the primaries.

I dunno, man.

Gore has never had a presidential look about him. I know that Hollywood is doing everything it can to help him along, but I predict the reality in 2008 will be the same as it was in 2000 and 2004 - that this election is going to be won in the middle, not on the coasts.

You're right about him representing all things anti-Bush, but his problem is that he's still Al Gore, a guy that many of us have a hard time taking seriously. I think being viewed as a 'wacko' by so many would-be supporters is going to seriously harm his campaign.

I put myself in that group, because I obviously intend to support the anti-Bush candidate, but cannot see myself campaigning or voting for Gore.

Hillary Clinton also has an extremely difficult legacy to escape and she's made a mistake in thinking that NY is representative of the rest of the U.S.

I need an anti-Bush with no ties to the previous Clinton administration.

Old_Rooster · « **Reply #14 on:** April 10, 2007, 06:38:19 AM »

OMG! Al Gore! lmao!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Dos Equis · « **Reply #15 on:** April 10, 2007, 08:50:06 AM »

Gore is a loser. He (along with Hillary) would be one way to guarantee another Democrat loss in November.

240 is Back · « **Reply #16 on:** April 10, 2007, 08:52:42 AM »

Quote from: Beach Bum on April 10, 2007, 08:50:06 AM

Gore is a loser. He (along with Hillary) would be one way to guarantee another Democrat loss in November.

The man received more votes for President than Bush in 2000. Bush was given the victory after courts refused to let the ballots be counted. Calling him a LOSER when over half the country was ready to pass him the nuclear football is kinda ignorant on your part.

Dos Equis · « **Reply #17 on:** April 10, 2007, 08:58:19 AM »

Gore was the VP for a popular president. Still, he lost his HOME state. He wins the election if he wins his HOME state, regardless of what happens in Florida. Gore snatched defeat from the jaws of victory. Losers do that.

Gore is a loser.

240 is Back · « **Reply #18 on:** April 10, 2007, 09:08:21 AM »

Quote from: Beach Bum on April 10, 2007, 08:58:19 AM

Gore was the VP for a popular president. Still, he lost his HOME state. He wins the election if he wins his HOME state, regardless of what happens in Florida. Gore snatched defeat from the jaws of victory. Losers do that.

Gore is a loser.

So - if Gore had won 49 states, but lost Tennesee, he sould still be a loser to you?

No offense, but you don't know much about politics. Running a nat'l campaign demands you employ a different platform than a state election. Gore could have tailored his campaign platform to win Tenn. instead, he tailored it to win the national election (which he did before being cheated).

I don't expect you to understand this though.

Camel Jockey · « **Reply #19 on:** April 10, 2007, 09:32:02 AM »

I would vote for Guliani.. The guy did a great job of cleaning up NYC, so I'm thankful to him for that task.

I also love the guy's stances. He's strict and stern like a conservative, yet he's for abortion.

Dos Equis · « **Reply #20 on:** April 10, 2007, 10:41:54 AM »

Quote from: 240 is Back on April 10, 2007, 09:08:21 AM

So - if Gore had won 49 states, but lost Tennesee, he sould still be a loser to you?

No offense, but you don't know much about politics. Running a nat'l campaign demands you employ a different platform than a state election. Gore could have tailored his campaign platform to win Tenn. instead, he tailored it to win the national election (which he did before being cheated).

I don't expect you to understand this though.

Another example of how 240 is unable to discuss an issue without ad hominem.

240 is Back · « **Reply #21 on:** April 10, 2007, 10:42:46 PM »

Quote from: Beach Bum on April 10, 2007, 10:41:54 AM

Another example of how 240 is unable to discuss an issue without ad hominem.

Beach Dumb.