Searching for:

Articles (sacbee & SacTicket)
Shopping Yellow Pages

Site Navigation

News
Sports
Business
Politics
Opinion
Entertainment
Lifestyle
Cars
Homes
Jobs
Shopping

Sacbee:

SUBSCRIBE: Internet Subscription Special

Return to story

Clinton maintains big advantage in California

Add Your Comment

Comments

44 Comments Posted

Sort by: Most Recent | Most Helpful

Cali4niaRags at 2:45 AM PST Friday, October 26, 2007 wrote:

I like Sowell's comment. Right on!

3 out of 9 people found this comment helpful.

Was this comment helpful? Yes | No

man007 at 5:06 AM PST Friday, October 26, 2007 wrote:

This race is like looking into a garbage can and trying to elect the best of the worthless mess. Everyone running stinks, with Clinton being among the most smelly. It would seem America can do better than this?

17 out of 27 people found this comment helpful.

Was this comment helpful? Yes | No

californiamarty at 6:05 AM PST Friday, October 26, 2007 wrote:

CALIFORNIA DEMOCRATS HAVE SCREWED THE STATE BY ELECTING SECOND RATE POLITICIANS, EXCEPT FOR ARNOLD AND THEY WILL HELP GET HILLARY GET ANOTHER 8 YEARS OF GREED AND CORRUPTION. THANKS A LOT CALIFORNIA

The poll, conducted Oct. 11-21, also found Clinton handily beating all potential Republican opponents in California in hypothetical general election matchups.

California has only one politician worth his salt and more. He is our Governor. The Lt. Gov. speaks out like a spoiled child. The Senate Pro Tem President Don Perata is a anti-business, classic tax and spend, porker who has been slopping at the public trough for years.

California democrats will vote for Hillary just as they vote for other democrats who promise what their constitutuents want to hear.

Hillary is of course not qualified to lead this country. She knows where they keep the china plates and linen in the White House but she has never NEVER run a business of any size, governed a city, state or even a condo board. She is a canned product of memorized positions which change with the audience.

California will lead the way to getting her elected to another 8 years of corruption with Billy. Thanks California.

18 out of 32 people found this comment helpful.

Was this comment helpful? Yes | No

louohls at 6:15 AM PST Friday, October 26, 2007 wrote:

It is a shame that America's first woman President will be Richard Nixon's alter-ego.

7 out of 12 people found this comment helpful.

Was this comment helpful? Yes | No

californiamarty at 6:16 AM PST Friday, October 26, 2007 wrote:

CALIFORNIANS WANT THIS FOR ANOTHER 8 YEARS? NOT ENOUGH ROOM TO POST THE REST OF THE DERELICTIONS OF HILLY AND BILLY- RUDY G AND MITT ROMNEY ARE EXCELLENT BUT WE HATE EXCELLENCE (except for Arnold)

- First first lady to come under criminal investigation
- Largest criminal plea agreement in an illegal campaign contribution case
- First president to establish a legal defense fund.
- First president to be held in contempt of court
- Greatest amount of illegal campaign contributions
- Greatest amount of illegal campaign contributions from abroad
- First president disbarred from the US Supreme Court and a state court

The Scandals:

Whitewater
Cattlegate
Nannygate
Helicoptergate
Travelgate
Gennifer Flowersgate
Filegate
Vince Fostergate
I wonder where those Whitewater billing records came fromgate
Paula Jonesgate
Federal Building campaign phone callgate
Lincoln bedroomgate
White House coffeegate
Donations from convicted drug and weapons dealersgate
Buddhist Templegate
Web Hubbell hush moneygate
Lippogate
Chinese commiegate - Clinton was practically endorsed by red China Update!
Let's blame Kenneth Starrgate
Zippergate/interngate - the

15 out of 28 people found this comment helpful.

Was this comment helpful? Yes | No

mccauley444 at 6:17 AM PST Friday, October 26, 2007 wrote:

Yet another Clinton puff piece

The Bee can't wait to endorse her, and this constant trumpeting of her having such a huge lead rings hollow,

He Bee, everyone here can tell you will endorse Hillary. No need to prep your readers, the ever declining readership, fr what is obvious.

14 out of 22 people found this comment helpful.

Was this comment helpful? Yes | No

jctaylor at 6:53 AM PST Friday, October 26, 2007 wrote:

Let's get it over with

The polls have decided, let's all just bow down and worship her highness, Queen Clinton now. There is no need for an election, California is dangerously left-leaning, and of course they are going to endorse the radical Clinton. The woman who will bring Canada/Biritsh socilazed medicine (the worst care in the world but at least its free). Clinton who will appoint the most extreme radical left wing judges to the bench Clinton of Whitewater fame.

Let the coronation begin

13 out of 22 people found this comment helpful.

Was this comment helpful? Yes | No

lilchuy at 6:59 AM PST Friday, October 26, 2007 wrote:

LOVE

HER ! ! ! . . .. .

6 out of 22 people found this comment helpful.

Was this comment helpful? Yes | No

blade_runner at 7:00 AM PST Friday, October 26, 2007 wrote:

Hillary=More Gridlock in Congress

Take a look at the House of Representatives. A member of Congress runs for re-election every two years. If we want action on the matters we care about, negotiation and compromise between conservatives and progressives must take place and, on any issue, some number of Congressmembers are going to be vulnerable to an opponent back home who wants their cushy job. Who is going to stick their neck out for Hillary Clinton, who's polling 40% in her own party and 0% among Republicans? I want to see a woman president, too, just not this woman.

12 out of 20 people found this comment helpful.

Was this comment helpful? Yes | No

anojette at 7:15 AM PST Friday, October 26, 2007 wrote:

Hatred of the President of the United States

Ironic how for going on 7 years now, critics of the current administration have been accused of having no agenda other than an unhealthy hatred of the President of the United States.

Clearly, if Senator Clinton is elected in 2008, there will continue to be no shortage of people with no agenda other than hatred of the President.

13 out of 18 people found this comment helpful.

Was this comment helpful? Yes | No

kimjoanmc at 7:29 AM PST Friday, October 26, 2007 wrote:

Missing Information...

What gets me about these polls is that they don't give you the biggest piece of the puzzle - the missing information - and that is that almost 50% of California voters - Nation wide voters as well - are still undecided as to who they are going to vote for in February. This is huge! Hillary's support is where it is, it is not going to get any bigger, these undecides are not going to vote for her. They also don't tell you how many people they talk to (generally samplings under 500) and who they talk to (likely voters - which means they have voted in the last three elections - who have landlines... guess what? This wipes out the 18-30 crowd which is solidly behind Obama).

13 out of 17 people found this comment helpful.

Was this comment helpful? Yes | No

northsacactivist at 7:42 AM PST Friday, October 26, 2007 wrote:

Nutsafonia

Of course Hillary will do well in California, it still is the land of fruits and nuts and the smart people are leaving,because the menal patients are running the state. Leave the state before all your money is taken and given to the "poor", homeless, illegal immigrants, and any endless number of stupid, worthless, money-wasting "programs"!

12 out of 17 people found this comment helpful.

Was this comment helpful? Yes | No

cyeager at 7:47 AM PST Friday, October 26, 2007 wrote:

Just lie to Congress...

Mrs. Clinton has... Land deals. She claimed she never worked or was involved in front of Congress.
Except for the time cards found later......

9 out of 12 people found this comment helpful.

Was this comment helpful? Yes | No

myrtleaguilar at 8:16 AM PST Friday, October 26, 2007 wrote:

I am a Democrat and I will not vote for this woman. She will put the last nails in the coffin of the US if elected. Man007 is right it's like trying to pick the least stinkiest in a can of garbage.

10 out of 14 people found this comment helpful.

Was this comment helpful? Yes | No

bclevy at 8:43 AM PST Friday, October 26, 2007 wrote:

Louohls is right on

Hillary is very different from her husband. It is a complete
mystery to me why Democrats are ignoring the candidate most
similar to Bill Clinton. Strangely enough, it is not Hillary,
but Bill Richardson. He is a 2 term governor, highly articulate,
moderate and pro business. We could do a lot worse, like
Hillary, Edwards, or even Giuliani.

5 out of 6 people found this comment helpful.

Was this comment helpful? Yes | No

skeptic_7 at 8:57 AM PST Friday, October 26, 2007 wrote:

Clinton Advantage in California

I wonder when we will get a chance to look at some real candidates but then maybe we have to first get some real political parties
Perhaps we should keep this new trend going and start the buzz for the election following the coming one - the only choice I see in the current crop is "NO"

4 out of 4 people found this comment helpful.

Was this comment helpful? Yes | No

SoleTaxPayer at 9:26 AM PST Friday, October 26, 2007 wrote:

doomed

the new gang boxer,diane, and zig hillary

4 out of 9 people found this comment helpful.

Was this comment helpful? Yes | No

reggiesquared at 9:31 AM PST Friday, October 26, 2007 wrote:

Good thing

Democrats don't actually go out and vote. They screw themselves every election. Otherwise I'd be worried. GO RUDY!

5 out of 9 people found this comment helpful.

Was this comment helpful? Yes | No

adds99 at 9:36 AM PST Friday, October 26, 2007 wrote:

Man she gets free adds from the media

Why not report the Zogby poll from the 20th

Whom would you NEVER vote for for President of the U.S.?
%

Clinton (D) 50%
Kucinich (D) 49%
Gravel (D) 47%
Paul (R) 47%
Brownback (R) 47%
Tancredo (R) 46%
McCain (R) 45%
Hunter (R) 44%
Giuliani (R) 43%
Romney (R) 42%
Edwards (D) 42%
Thompson (R)41%
Dodd (D) 41%
Biden (D) 40%
Obama (D) 37%
Huckabee (R) 35%
Richardson (D) 34%

She may win the primary but if she does the republicans win the general. Hopefully her primary opponents will used paid advertizing to show how weak she really is before the press nominates her with all the free media. On the other hand it'll be so fun having a general where on the central issue the war in iraq both candidates polcies are bush's stay the course policy.

A huge 59% of those 65 said they would never vote for clinton only the kids 18-29 at 42% (Like they vote in large numbers) kept her close at 42%. In march she was at 46% so disapproval is growing. 1% margin of error.

7 out of 8 people found this comment helpful.

Was this comment helpful? Yes | No

jangrl13 at 10:21 AM PST Friday, October 26, 2007 wrote:

Wrong Reason

If someone's going to vote for her just because she's a woman, that's the WRONG reason! I would love to see a woman president, and it's embarrassing that African and Muslim countries have elected women presidents/prime ministers and we still get hung up over it. Regardless, a woman has to run on issues just like the boys do and must be elected for what she stands for, not her gender.

That said, I like Obama. He's honest, intelligent and seems to have integrity. His lack of experience is a drawback but not a deal breaker. However, as another poster said, how come Richardson isn't getting more attention? He does have the experience but as yet has been unable to distinguish himself in the Clinton circus. It's like he's the Mike Huckabee of the Democrats: someone with experience who expemplifies his party's values, yet can't get said party's attention for some strange reason.

3 out of 4 people found this comment helpful.

Was this comment helpful? Yes | No

kennerd at 11:21 AM PST Friday, October 26, 2007 wrote:

I Love Hillary, too

and I am not the only one. You can hang out all the dirty laundry you want, but in the end her vision for a better America for most Americans will prevail. Study the issues, watch the debates, and for vote Hillary Clinton in 2008! GO HILLARY!

5 out of 12 people found this comment helpful.

Was this comment helpful? Yes | No

adds99 at 11:45 AM PST Friday, October 26, 2007 wrote:

Jangrl

Unfortunately Richardson's been relegated to free media obscurity but the voters in Iowa and New Hamphsire could change that. If they do we'll be hearing alot more about the supply side democrat that wants to harness tax policy to encourage investment in america and clean energy while removing the benefits of offshoring. He's raised enough money roughly equivalent to kerry last time around to put himself in the game if he can finish in the top 3 in iowa or NH.

As the climbing second tier candidate he hasn't rated the is he too hispanic or not hispanic enough coverage and his policy releases go largely uncovered in the media.

Huckabee I believe will come out of Iowa with a big boost but he's so far behind on money he absolutely will need free media to harness it.

I've never not voted for a democrat but if Hillary is the Candidate I'll be voting third party not that it matters. I don't want her taint on the party into the future, we'll end up owning iraq and possibly iran.

3 out of 4 people found this comment helpful.

Was this comment helpful? Yes | No

backdoor969 at 12:10 PM PST Friday, October 26, 2007 wrote:

YOU SIMPLY COULD NOT VOTE IN ANYONE ANY WORSE THAN WHAT WE CURRENTLY HAVE.

It's amazing to hear how insecure some of you are with you're own "manhood" to criticize Hillary because she is a women. Dude, that's simply embarrassing. I'd vote my sister-in-law in if I could. She'd put you in your place in a heart beat.
The Republicans really did this to themselves. As a Republican and a patriotic American, and always more American than Republican, I'm ashamed at what we've become. A quiet majority, overwhelmingly displeased with our administration, but unwilling to impeach or speak up because it would be percieved as un-American. So most of the country is just waiting, knowing the worst is almost over.
All the candidates are qualified to run for president. Who is more qualified in your mind is your personal opinion. But to imagine one is less qualified because she is a female? Dude you need to seriously grow up, and while you're at it learn to do your own laundry and try to cook something. Jeeesh. It's people like you that give us men a bad name.

5 out of 9 people found this comment helpful.

Was this comment helpful? Yes | No

jctaylor at 12:10 PM PST Friday, October 26, 2007 wrote:

Hillary can't win the presidency

It is unconstional, she has already run the White House and been in charge of the country for 8 years

2 out of 4 people found this comment helpful.

Was this comment helpful? Yes | No

NoNewArena at 12:18 PM PST Friday, October 26, 2007 wrote:

He's innocent....

God, she sickens me. I'd vote for O.J. before her.

4 out of 9 people found this comment helpful.

Was this comment helpful? Yes | No

Jen at 12:29 PM PST Friday, October 26, 2007 wrote:

the ONLY way....

... the Repugnant-cans, I mean republicans, can win the presidency in 2008 is if Hilary is the democratic nominee. This in spite of Romney's flip flopping, dog abusing alter ego, Guiliani's questionable personal moral ethics and pathetic 9/11 schtik, and thompson's alzheimers (sorry, no insult to alheimers patients intended). Those Reeps are SOOOO sad. But the vast majority of idiot middle america wants the conveniently packaged soundbyte - and based on the right-wing machine's expertise at providing that, Hill is unelectable.

1 out of 6 people found this comment helpful.

Was this comment helpful? Yes | No

californiamarty at 12:31 PM PST Friday, October 26, 2007 wrote:

IT IS AMAZING THAT THE PRESS KEEPS QUIET AND CALIFORNIANS FORGET SO SOON THE DERELICTIONS OF HILLY AND SLICK FOR 8 YEARS OF GREED AND CORRUPTION-REMINDS ONE OF FERDINAND AND EMELDA MARCOS-CALIFORNIA-IS TRULY LALA LAND

Those who find criticisms of Perata and the Clintons "unhelpful" are why Calfornia is the subject of ridicule even by those who live here. We elect these porkers of perks to the highest offices and wonder and even scoff at those whose moral values and conscience prevent them from joining in the travesty. Our state is always in the red because of these spenders and only Prop. 13 and its provisions and those who serve US and NOT THEMSELVES KEEP these selfish porkers in check. When we read about these greedy people who take from us and then post the truth about the people jobs and revenues lost to this state you would think most would be outraged. Most are not. So much for the morality of our new breed. As for me I would have long ago walked door to door with a recall petititon with Don Perata's name on it if I were living in his district. The trouble is, those who elected him, don't seem to give a rat's a...

5 out of 8 people found this comment helpful.

Was this comment helpful? Yes | No

californiamarty at 12:53 PM PST Friday, October 26, 2007 wrote:

HILLARY AND OBAMA NEVER RAN A CITY, STATE, BUSINESS, CONDO BOARD BUT HILLARY KNOWS WHERE THEY KEEP THE CHINA PLATE AND SILVERWARE IN THE WHITE HOUSE

just because he has a gift of gab and is good looking doesn't qualify him to be President of the United States of Amerca. (Will Smith has more business experience) He was born to Muslim father who named him Hussein, he left. Then raised 6-10 years old in Jakarta by a Muslim stepfa. and mother until dad died. He was a "community service worker" in Chicago. Just paid his parking warrants. Lately he appears to deride the support for this country by taking off his flag button and not placing his hand over his heart during the National Anthem. His Senate career is barely started and unremarkable. So why THEM when Rudy G. and Mitt Romney are so far above THEM in experience and wisdom? Rudy jammed the Mafia, Mitt cleaned up the Olympics, Rudy cleaned up crime and fraud in NYC as Mayor and 9/11 leader, Mitt was successful Gov. of Mass. a democrat state. Both are world wide business leaders. Mitt worth 250 million self-made.
Hillary came close to being indicted for perjury and obstruction.

6 out of 10 people found this comment helpful.

Was this comment helpful? Yes | No

jctaylor at 1:06 PM PST Friday, October 26, 2007 wrote:

Backdoor where are you coming from?

I didn't see anyone criticize Hillary because she is a woman. I criticize her because she is dishonest, radically liberal, would make Jimmy Carter (truly the worst President in modern history(the only time I ever voted for a Democrat for President)look like Abraham Lincoln and George Washington rolled into one. She is totally without character, morals or merit.

It has nothing to do with the fact that she is a woman,.

Also the reason that Bush has not been impeached, is not because people are afraid of being "un-American", the reason is that only those on the lunatic fringe(not a quite majority) think he is guilty of anything he could be impeched for.

There are plenty of people, yourself inculded that have spoken out against President Bush

10 out of 11 people found this comment helpful.

Was this comment helpful? Yes | No

bootff at 1:19 PM PST Friday, October 26, 2007 wrote:

Rudy G. may have run a city BUT!

Rudy may have run NYC but can he really run the country. George Bush is lousy at international relations and Rudy is even worse. In fact he does not even get his facts straight about the 9/11 participants.

We need a leader in international relations who does not shoot us in the foot.

2 out of 6 people found this comment helpful.

Was this comment helpful? Yes | No

Dustyman73 at 1:21 PM PST Friday, October 26, 2007 wrote:

Jen..so most of middle Americans to you are idiots? What makes them idiots? What do you understand that they don't? What vastly deeper insight do you have than them? Please, humor us with some more of your elitist bull. What great contributions do you make to American society that "middle Americans" will never be able to come close to attaining? Let's hear a point by point response, Einstein...

Hilary isn't unelectable because middle America needs a soundbyte. Her problems are that America is NOT a socialist country..but Hilary (and most of the rest of the Democrat field, except maybe Bill Richardson) are socialists.

5 out of 7 people found this comment helpful.

Was this comment helpful? Yes | No

reilleyfam at 1:43 PM PST Friday, October 26, 2007 wrote:

GIULIANI IS NEXT PRESIDENT

Face it, for most Americans she is too liberal & for those still stuck in the 19th century, a woman.

The only candidate (and the pickings are pretty lame for 08) who is a competent moderate who can unite the country and is tough enough to regain control of our govt and deal with the international scene (especially Iraq) is Rudy.

He can work with both Republicans and Democrats, he's a proven leader and results-producer & he can unite the country at a time of huge division & uncertainty & pessimism.

NOW IS NOT THE TIME FOR AN "EXPERIMENTAL PRESIDENT."
SHE WILL ONLY DIVIDE THE COUNTRY FURTHER.

6 out of 10 people found this comment helpful.

Was this comment helpful? Yes | No

Chuckles007 at 3:18 PM PST Friday, October 26, 2007 wrote:

Rudy? You have got to be kidding me

Rudy "9/11" Giuliani? The only reason he's running is because of 9/11. In his 2000 tax returns he underreported his income because he was going through a messy divorce after cheating on his wife. Then he makes $30 million on speaking engagements after 9/11. No one has made more money on 9/11 than Rudy...well, Bush and Cheney have also made a killing. Pun very much intended. I wonder what the topic of Rudy's talks on 9/11 was? Perhaps it was that he looked so presidential walking street level because his command center was under rubble. His people told him to put it in the Bronx but Rudy insisted on putting it an area that had already been attacked by terrorists once before. People, this election is about judgment - not experience. Years occupying a chair in Washington D.C. or NYC doesn't mean you have the right kind of experience. All that means is you managed to get elected more than once. Big whoop. It's about the judgment you exercised while at your post. Obama 08. Judgment to lead!

1 out of 7 people found this comment helpful.

Was this comment helpful? Yes | No

zorak33 at 3:31 PM PST Friday, October 26, 2007 wrote:

Its disappointing that so many of us Democrats are willing to make her the nominee. She's a corporate Democrat, more business as usual and the name value advantage she enjoys in the primary will kill her in the general. Support someone who will produce real change. Support John Edwards.

3 out of 4 people found this comment helpful.

Was this comment helpful? Yes | No

SVogel at 3:41 PM PST Friday, October 26, 2007 wrote:

"californiamarty" -- now just as annoying as "NNA"!

Dude -- printing in ALL CAPS every time does not make your point for you. It's just annoying. And all of the "-gates" you mention pale in comparison to "W"s various messes.

3 out of 4 people found this comment helpful.

Was this comment helpful? Yes | No

Jen at 3:57 PM PST Friday, October 26, 2007 wrote:

If having the intellectual sophistication to do my research and grasp some fraction of the complexities of domestic and international political discourse makes me eletist, then so be it. The post that says only a "lunatic fringe" wants congress to consider impeachment (i didn't realize 30%-50% depending on the poll constituted a lunatic fringe), or the posts that throw "socialist" around like a dirty word when the policy ideas being called "socialist" are nothing of the sort (go tell the europeans their universal healthcare makes them socialists), is exactly the kind of pre-packaged easy-to-understand rhetoric being thrown around by the likes of Faux news channel and gobbled up by americans like so much rotten hamburger to stray dogs. Oh yeah, and Whitewater and Bill's dome job in the oval, blah blah. Lets compare that to torture, illegal war, signing statements, historic deficits, squandering the world's post 9/11 goodwill, Dick "I'm not in the executive branch" Cheney, and Gonzo.

3 out of 8 people found this comment helpful.

Was this comment helpful? Yes | No

yuffie03 at 5:36 PM PST Friday, October 26, 2007 wrote:

Bottom Line

We could elect a monkey and it could not screw things up worse than Dumbya has. Wait a minute. He is a monkey.

1 out of 5 people found this comment helpful.

Was this comment helpful? Yes | No

Democracynow at 5:45 PM PST Friday, October 26, 2007 wrote:

Right on Jen

Although I don't really like Hillary, she'd be better than the far right the Republicans are putting up there. Its like walking into a mental instution when you ask them about Iran (minus Ron Paul who rightfully is baffled every time he hears his competitors speak).

P.S. I'm sick of the "ALL THESE CANDIDATES SUCK!" comments. Look into some of them. Maybe Hillary v. Rudy would be choosing between 2 stinkers but look how many choices you have right now before you complain. There are 2 inevitabilies in every election: 1.) Online conspiracy theorists who think that the presidential candidates are trying to take over the world in some sort of New World Order, and 2.) Seemingly all Americans complaining that 'all these candidates stink!'.

If it were Lincoln running against Washington, I guarentee you there would still be a good amount of people going 'Man...I wish we could find better candidates!'

0 out of 4 people found this comment helpful.

Was this comment helpful? Yes | No

yubamatt at 6:29 PM PST Friday, October 26, 2007 wrote:

She will win

The socialists, er, Democrats will then get their European-style USA. We'll see how we do with a 40% tax rate, 12% sales tax, 20% unemployment, billions of illegals, socialist medicine, terrorism, and all the other issues facing socialist governments in Europe.

I guess Californians are as stupid as the rest of the country believes. We've already been through the socialist Gray Davis years, yet Dems are ready to embrace a clone in Hillary. What happened to this state will happen to this country.

Hillary and the Democratic congress will tax the life right out of this country.
It's inevitable. They're democrats.

2 out of 2 people found this comment helpful.

Was this comment helpful? Yes | No

jctaylor at 7:14 PM PST Friday, October 26, 2007 wrote:

What polll

I challenge you Jen to find ONE poll where 30 to 50% of the American people, unless that poll was conducted in the People's Republic of Berkely or among your ten closest friends think that Bush should be impeached.

I don't want to confuse you with FACTS Jen, but the war is not illegal,no one has been tortured and there have been NO crminal action on the part of the President.

Our health system defitnetly needs to be fixed, but socialized medicine is not the answer. People in Canada and Biritian flock here to have REAL medical care. The system in American needs repair, the system in Europe and Canada is a JOKE.

You are so blinded by your utter hatred of the President that make up things out of your ignorant imaganation.

If 30-50% of Americans wanted Bush impeached, as you claim, it would be all over the media and the trial would have already taken place

I do agree with zora, GO Edwards, the only candidate that would give the Reps control of the White House and Congress

2 out of 2 people found this comment helpful.

Was this comment helpful? Yes | No

kennerd at 7:44 PM PST Friday, October 26, 2007 wrote:

The best presidents in history are:

1. George Washington
2. Abe Lincoln
3. Teddy Roosevelt
4. Franklin Roosevelt
5. Harry Truman
6. John Kennedy
7. Lyndon Johnson (remember the war on poverty, not Viet Nam)
8. Jimmy Carter (His work continues to benefit humanity)
9. Bill Clinton
10. Her inittials are: HRC!

0 out of 5 people found this comment helpful.

Was this comment helpful? Yes | No

Dustyman73 at 8:58 PM PST Friday, October 26, 2007 wrote:

Jen, how is the war illegal? You believe your premise, so every other person who has thought out the situation and came to a different premise or hypothesis is an idiot? Do you have proof of Bush sponsored torture? Where is it? I'd like to see it, since that would really get my attention. Or is "torture" in your mind being treated like anything less than a king? Yes, to you, socialism is not socialism. The lunatic fringe has all the comforts of home, and Hillary is counting on your vote.

3 out of 3 people found this comment helpful.

Was this comment helpful? Yes | No

mccauley444 at 9:39 PM PST Friday, October 26, 2007 wrote:

kennerd The Kool aid drinker

You poll is a joke right? Did you live through Carter and the horrid financial condition of this country with its 12 interest rates? Carter was a horrid president.

Number 10 shows you are too partisan to even be voting. Put down the Kool Aid

3 out of 3 people found this comment helpful.

Was this comment helpful? Yes | No

keith181fm at 6:27 AM PST Saturday, October 27, 2007 wrote:

There is no way

that Hillary Clinton will ever be President. So everyone just relax..........

2 out of 2 people found this comment helpful.

Was this comment helpful? Yes | No

Sacbee Ad Links

Buy a link here

News | Sports | Business | Politics | Opinion | Entertainment | Lifestyle | Cars | Homes | Jobs | Shopping

Contact Bee Customer Service | Contact sacbee.com | Advertise Online | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Help | Site Map

GUIDE TO THE BEE: | Subscribe | Manage Your Subscription | Contacts | Advertise | Bee Events | Community Involvement

Sacbee.com | SacTicket.com | Sacramento.com

Copyright © The Sacramento Bee, (916) 321-1000

Go to Home Page

Contact The Bee: (916) 321-1000 | E-Mail

Guide to The Bee

Subscribe
Customer Service
Site Map