Perfect, Ann! Spot on as usual! I love the reference of women marrying for money and including recent presidential candidate drop out, John Kerry. I guess he was for the nomination before he was against it.

Hillaroo Rotten has as much chance as being elected as my beloved “Rocket the Wonder Dog” but for different reasons. Her attack on Osama Barama Bananafanna Osama has created an illusion that said Illinois Senator is a terrorist, if only by association, and this ad hominem attack most likely has rendered him damaged goods. But her attack on him will most likely backfire, as good people (read: non-lefty’s) will see her attacks as mean spirited and evil.

My other thought is will the ex-philanderer-in-chief bite his lower lip and hold the hand of his dear wife as she explains away the accusations of some woman who just might make some sort of accusation as they are soft-balled by Mike Wallace? (“I did not have sex with that woman, but my husband might have.”)

Agreed that Rudy and McCain are the early front-runners. I share your concern but also concur that the first might just be last by the time the convention rolls around. There must be someone else! (Newt? John Cox? Rocket the Wonderdog?)

America’s Mayor, Rudy, does have some good qualities but comes with more baggage than the red eye from Dhaka. McCain is only one or two votes away from being the most disliked senator (on a personal basis.) One of his blow-ups in public will relegate him to Gary Hart-like electability.

If not them, then who?

I dunno, but I would like to see a conservative. How about you?

I love your Jim Webb assessment. I am not suggesting that the dirty tricks he employed to steal his seat in the senate (huh? what? oh, I see, only Republicans steal elections. Sorry, my bad.), coupled with his pornographers sense of decorum make him the perfect choice to offer his “rebuttal” (or, in Democratic Party Terms, “an opportunity to slam the President by a fungible factotum without actually ‘rebutting’ anything”). The Republicans couldn’t have hand picked a better person to make a mockery of the Democratic Party positions.

Tongue in cheek, I posited here a while back that he Republican’s threw the elections last year to expose the soft-white underbelly of the Democratic Party to the American people with the goal of going for the hat trick in ‘08. The way things are going so far, I might be right! Hmmm… 50 monkeys and 50 typewriters?

God Bless and God Speed
John

Beautiful! Just beautiful, Ann!

The Democratic front runner, “Shrillary” Clinton, is comparing herself to Margaret Thatcher? How delusional! Ms. Thatcher has class, dignity and a moral compass, and lives in the real world. “Her Shrillness” is nothing more than an opportunistic chameleon.

Hillary’s announcement is as astonishing and exciting as hitting rush hour traffic every day. I hit it every morning; then again every afternoon. The REAL shocker is when I DON’T hit traffic.

Hillary’s attempts at feigning “I’ve made no decision yet” was her failed attempt at theatricality and a failed attempt to inflame some excitement, interest, speculation and ultimate surprise when her decision was finally announced.

Her announcement was as surprising as going to a fireworks display and actually seeing fireworks.

Everyone has known for years now that Hillary was going to run on ’08. If anyone was actually surprised by her announcement, I really don’t want to know where their head has been for the past few years.

By the way, if only former military personnel can talk about war because they are experienced in the matter, doesn’t that also mean that only people that actually have put a little boy’s penis in their mouth are allowed to write about it because only they know and understand how it’s not sexual? Yes – I know that’s a VERY disgusting and disturbing thought. But, how else would Sen. Jim Webb (D), who wrote that in one of his books, know that that behavior was not sexual, which was his explanation when asked about it?

And now back to “Shrillary”. I do have a problem with calling her a “chick”. It gives us REAL chicks a bad name!

Yes, Hillary is a crashing bore. I'd rather listen to her screaming like a banshee--at least that's entertaining.
As for Webb, sounds to me like he spent his time in Vietnam in a brothel.

It will not matter here in Colorado. Our new demo senate just passed 07-046 out of committee. It gives out Electoral College votes to the winner of the popular vote (New York & California) regardless of how the Colorado voters vote. If you can't beat-em, change the rules until you can.

What about Senetor Sam Brownback? I am pretty sure he doesn't have a chance in ****, but one can hope...Right? Any thoughts on his running for President?

Just curious..
Tanya

Dear Miss Coulter, Why you pickin on Ms. Hillary?
If'n the American People want things to get weird and hinky why not let them have what they want. It's their country. Let em blow it up if they want. Then again, I'm old; what do I care?
taxi.

Tanya:

You make a great point about Sam Brownback. There are a few others I’d like to see give it a shot as well. Jon Kyl and Rick Santorum for openers. John Cox, another good conservative has already announced.

I think that neither Rudy nor McC will get the nod as a result of their politics or personalities thus drawing out a far superior candidate, such as those mentioned above. (If you are interested, I just sent out my little email “The Daily Fish” where I discuss the putative candidates. Please email me at jaksavin@aol.com with “fish” in the subject line and I would be happy to forward it to you.)

God Bless and God Speed
John

Given the name recognition and the unmatched fundraising capabilities, at this point it seems a certainty Hillary will win the general.
Of course, she must first survive the primaries, and there are as many on the left opposed to her as there are on the right.

On the right, Rudy and McCain will never get the nod, and basically, that's all there is.
Brownback-snowball in hell.
Cox-snowing on the Sun
Hagel-after his non-binding resolution speech, Republicans will turn on him like Hastert on a chicken wing.
Santorum-ha!
The right better start flushing out some decent candidates with a real chance, or Madam President it is.

Of course, this early out it's all just a silly guessing game anyway.

kevind:

Much of what you wrote could be correct. This confirms the 50 monkeys/50 typewriters theory.

However, you could not be more wrong about Hillary. I doubt seriously that she will survive the primaries let alone be nominated. I could be wrong and one ought never underestimate a Clinton but she is not well liked in the fly over states and really, outside of the North East and West Coast, she has not a large, loyal following. She is doing poorly in the early polls particularly in the Mid West.

Your assessment that it is only a silly guessing game is correct. But you as well as most liberals ought not be too sure of yourselves. I am convinced that Congress will have as much as an effect on which party gets elected than do the candidates themselves. If Congress insists on passing unpopular (to most people, not liberals) laws and such they will be in for a ruder awakening than were the Republicans a dozen or so Wednesday’s back. Should they run a tight ship and don’t make too many waves, who knows, the Dems might pull it off.

But, it wont be Hillary.

God Bless and God Speed
John

John,

"However, you could not be more wrong about Hillary. I doubt seriously that she will survive the primaries let alone be nominated."

You could be wrong on that one. She does have the finances and the Clintons do have a propensity to inspire mysterious deaths.

Lynn

Jaksavin,

As I am not a registered Democrat, I do not vote in their primaries and therefore have no voice in their choice of nominee.

Even if I had a say-so, I would not be supporting Hillary.

However, the Republicans, on top of providing a 'less than stellar' cast of candidates (again, it's quite early), are also going to have to overcome two years of Democratic investigations and all of the mud-slinging that entails.

The more corruption and incompetence exposed from the Administration and the 109th Congress, the better it is for the Democrats.

And therefore, the better for Hillary.

Lynn and kevind:

Regardless of party affiliation or lack thereof, regardless of “propensity” for their enemy’s untimely achieving room temperature, regardless of the Republican’s “less than stellar cast” (I agree), regardless of the machinations of Pelosi and future RICO subject Reid, regardless of anything, Hillary is unelectable. (Her minions would have to work too long and too hard to cover up the amount of permanent horizontalness required for her to win.)

I have said before and will stay on message that given all that we know about her, given all that the politicos know about her, given that the Clintonistas are ruthless people will only serve to disabuse the powers that be to bestow the Democratic crown on her. She is running something like 4th in Iowa and elsewhere with 10% of the vote. Another way of looking at it is 90% of the people like others better.

Her attack and “investigation”, real or imagined, on Obama will bite her on her prodigious ass. She is singularly unlikable, strident in her speech and the wrong person for the job.

As far as kevind’s allegation of malfeasance by the recent administration, that is pale in comparison to the previous Clinton’s. (Most indictments, convictions of ANY administration. Look it up.) I am sure the Dems will be on a witch-hunt for the next 2 years. This way they can say that they were too busy to do any work because of their investigations. But, even you know that rings hollow. The Dems will force or attempt to force their liberal agenda down the neck of America and the Republicans appear to be testicular deficient to stop them. We need a good, strong, pro-American to run for president, we need a new Ronald Reagan. I am sure that there is one out there and if he or she surfaces the Dems have not a chance in the world.

God Bless and God Speed
John

Ron Paul for President.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul-arch.html

--yam

John,

I never said she was elect-able. Was I vague in any way? The statement I quoted was:

"However, you could not be more wrong about Hillary. I doubt seriously that she will survive the primaries let alone be nominated."

It's about the primaries and her nomination - not her elect-ability. I personally do not believe America is ready for a woman president - regardless of whether it is "Her Shrillness" or not.

The Clinton "friends" and competition do have a certain fascination with dining with the Grim Reaper. And, "Shrillary" does have the financial and personal resources to expedite the banquet.

The point being, she has the “resources” to “dispatch” the competition in whatever way she sees fit and, in my humble opinion, will do so by whatever means are necessary to ensure the nomination is hers. Lies, distortion, deceit, mudslinging, even death are not beyond this woman’s realm. I don’t think there are any limitations or obstacles to her ambitions.

Putting it straight forward, regardless of her wacko liberal nanny-state agenda and the fact that she has absolutely no qualifications for such a position of responsibility and leadership, we need to keep her out of the Whitehouse simply because who would want BJ back with the interns!

And Democrats think the Mark Foley IM's were horrendously intolerable!

Lynn

I find it frustrating that so many people know what she is and what she is all about, but the mainstream media plays this game like this is a big suprise, all new to the world, yadayadayada. Unbelievable. Great column Ann.

Will we ever have a true choice instead of "the lesser of two evils?" I really thought G Dub was going to be that person...and he turned out to be just another RINO. I like Rudy...but he's just another RINO. John McCain...RINO. It ticks me off that I have to choose a RINO just to keep from having a pussy-liberal. Hillary...European Socialist. Osama...uber-liberal. John Kerry...just a pathetic, traitorous pussy. Too bad he's out of it. The Swift Boat vets don't have to hold the truth out again. Where's the true conservative? I want Newt to run because he's the only person with any kind of name-recognition who is a true conservative. Unfortunately, all of our conservative, patriot pundits choose to stay on the sidelines and give the play by play...so who? I REALLY want Col David Hunt. I knew him when he was a brigade commander in the 4th Infantry Division at Fort Carson, CO...and the man you see as a military analyst is exactly the man he is...and the troops loved him. He was hard and fair and always in the field with his troops. And the world would NOT be able to F with him!! But no...no name recognition, and the pussy liberals would just decompose!! Would that be cool?!? If we can't get a truly conservative Republican...we need our own party! The American Party...the Patriot Party...the Conservative Party.

To all,

What is this palpable fear of Hillary I'm detecting on this board?

Can't find a true Republican? Someone with enough spine to withstand the Democrats' propaganda machine and kick terrorist ass? Someone with the moxie, character and muscles (not to mention gams) to take on the Clintons, drive the "first-woman this and that" party stark bonkers and beat the feminazis at their own game? Someone with name recognition?

People, people! ...

Hello!

Let me be the first to state the obvious. (And she can thank me in her first State of the Union speech.)

ANN COULTER 2008!

Dibs on the first bumper sticker.

Whaddya say, Ann?

Mechmorph:

“What is this palpable fear of Hillary I'm detecting on this board?”

It is not a fear of Hillary herself – it’s a fear of a Hillary presidency, and Bill as the “first-BJ”.

Republicans have nothing to fear from Hillary during the primaries. She first needs to focus on “knocking-off” the rest of the Democratic field – which should prove rather amusing.

“Shrillary”, as I call her as I can’t stand that voice of hers – like fingernails on a chalk board, will use any means necessary to destroy her competition – and DESTROY them she will. It's the Clinton way - not debate on issues, rather, absolutely destroy the competition. Whether it’s rumors, lies, deceit, distortion, deception, ad hominem attacks, bribery - nothing is considered over the top by this woman, except if it’s done to her by a Republican.

The problem is that Republicans are weak. They finally got power and look what they did with it. Democrats were FINALLY voted out of office after 40 years for the exact same reasons Republicans were this past election cycle.

Republicans don’t lead. When they get power, they just worry about losing it or their poll numbers, versus doing what they were voted in for or doing what’s right. They let Democrats define them through the use of their accomplices in the liberal main stream media, and Republicans don’t fight back. It’s pathetic.

And, look what happened when a Republican, Rick Lazio, dared to confront Hillary at a debate during her first bid for Senator of NY. For those that don’t remember, he dared to confront Hillary by walking over to her podium and asking her to sign a ban on “soft money” contributions that she was so adamantly campaigning about (but really had no intention of ever addressing let alone banning), if I remember correctly.

The NY sympathy vote turned out in droves to back Hillary because Rick Lazio “man-handled” poor, fragile, defenseless little Hillary. And she and others think she has the “stuff” to be President of the United States. She couldn’t even handle the approach of a fellow politician calling her bluff during a debate. She was the poor little housewife being “man-handled” by an abusive, oppressive, sexist man. And New Yorkers are supposed to be tough – yeah, right.

When dealing with foreign leaders, especially those that put women in the same class as mud, she is going to get far worse than the sight of a man approaching to ask her to sign a paper. If she’s so fragile, these rough, tough, obnoxious, blatantly sexist, pompous little foreign dignitaries and leaders are going to walk all over her AND The United States of America!

Lynn

ARGH!

Lynn:

Did not infer that you or kevind said that Hillaroo was electable, was simply amplifying remarks and thoughts. But, I find your comment “I do not believe America is ready for a woman president” a tad disturbing. Lynn, I want the best PERSON to lead us and their chromosomal make up is of little concern to me. Here you go, pick one: Jimmy Carter or Margaret Thatcher. ‘Nuff said. I do agree with your allegation about her baseness and duplicity. But, that is a given.

Ziggy:

A clear and concise deconstruction of the pretenders to the Big Chair. Col. Hunt, while a good man and great military leader, has what else going for him? What are his positions on issues other than war? Yet, I do agree with you that we need out own party, or, take back our existing party. Perhaps some sort of litmus test for someone who wants to run as a Republican is in order. One look at Mike Bloomberg of NY and you can see is no more a Republican than Rocket the Wonderdog is a brain surgeon. Basta! If you want to be a Republican, darn it, act like one! (For a moment I was concerned that I would not have my weekly dose of “pussy-liberal.” Thanks!)

mechmorph:

There is no ‘fear’ of Hillaroo, just, well, one degree away from hate. (We are instructed not to hate but that woman presses the limits.) I think I speak for many when I say that I agree with you that Ann would make a great president. Gams and all! If she were to be I would beg and plead for her to make me the first “Secretary of the Gulags.” Speaking of bumper stickers, I have one on my car that reads “NUR, yralliH, nuR”… tis on my FRONT bumper.

God Bless and God Speed!
John

John,

You didn't make that clear based upon the first sentence of your reply to myself and kevind, in which you clearly stated her chances of "elect-ability", which is not what I had said, either directly or implied.

Best person or not. Most of our elections are "the lesser of 2 evils" - not the best person for the job. It isn't always "the best person" that gets nominated.

I'm not saying America is sexist. The presidency is a very tough job and requires a tough person to handle it. Most (not all) women have weaknesses that men don't have (and vice versa).

The presidency REQUIRES tough decisions be made, especially with regards to sending young lives into war, and possibly to their death.

War kills - period. Most women have a tough time with this because they internalize and emotionalize it and think of how they would FEEL about losing their own son(s) - not about something greater than themselves or the safety of the country first. Most women are emotional first where most men are logical first.

It’s a psychological fact that most men, and there are exceptions to everything, “exist” on the left side of the brain – the logical/fact side. While they can “access” the right side, the emotional side, men are more comfortable with logic and facts. And, they can read maps – LOL.

Most women, and again there are exceptions, prefer and are more comfortable with the right side of the brain.

Why do you think most children run to mommy first when they fall and scrape their knee? Because, mommy will most likely give them a nurturing hug and kiss.

It’s very easy for dad, on the other hand, – and again, there are exceptions - to go into the “ya gotta toughen up kid, it’s a jungle out there and it only gets worse as you grow up. I’m not always going to be there to wipe your nose,” speech.

While parenting today has changed a bit, a man’s first instinct is logic and facts, not emotional outbursts.

I am a computer programmer and have logic in spades – much more than most women. But, it is VERY easy for me to internalize and emotionalize anything. And, I’ve suffered and survived a massive bi-lateral stroke which has affected my brain. I now tear up at practically everything and anything that effects any emotion: happy, sad, beautiful – you name it. The emotional side of my brain has been affected and probably permanently. But, I can read maps - LOL.

I do not think America is ready for a woman president.

There are a few women I would vote for: Ann being one, and Condoleeza Rice being another. And yes, I would vote for Margaret Thatcher.

Now you choose: Ronald Reagan or Margaret Thatcher.

Or, how about: Jimmy Carter or Bill Clinton.

And, how about: John Kerry or Jimmy Carter.

Your pairing was an obvious moron versus a highly qualified person. Our choices usually involve “the lesser of 2 evils”, as pointed out by another poster.

Lynn

Lynn:

Still disagree with you as far as a woman president is concerned. Lady Maggie was PM during the Falkland War and I think they prevailed, despite with the Times reported!

Your point of women being more nurturing is probably correct but one of the reasons why kids run to mommy is because they are home, at least they were when I was young. But, as a dad, I did say ‘toughen up” and so forth.

To answer your poll:
Reagan or Thatcher. Dead heat but I’d pick the Gipper.
Carter or Clinton: Hate to say it, but Clinton.
Kerry or Carter: Hillary! LOL!

God Bless and God Speed
John

John,

You made my point. In a dead heat, Reagan versus Thatcher, you chose the man.

In Carter versus Clinton (and I meant Bill - sorry of there was some confusion), you chose Bill, and not the ladylike Carter.

The last one, you didn't even choose - you either did a write in, or sat out the election.

Lynn

Great column, Ann...and lots of good comments. Here's one I wonder if anyone has given any consideration to.

When all the fuss was being made about WJC's pricey Manhattan office (post-presidency) and he finally ended up in Harlem, who was quietly going about signing a lease on the second most expensive in-state Congressional office??? With a large enough staff to prepare for the 2008 run???? None other than the woman who sold herself and lost all respect by staying with a womanizer for strictly selfish reasons!

I know too many women who believe as I do that there is NO WAY they would ever vote for her! Condoleeza Rice has more dignity and knowledge than Hillary could ever dream of acquiring.

As for a 2008 ticket, I'd like to see Condi in the second spot...still out on who for first...but don't think it will end up being any in the news right now. Newt may just be the one.

Now for a serious suggestion...to prevent all of these fine folks from neglecting their service to their constituents, how about a rule change that to run for the presidency, one should resign from Congress (or any other public office) to do so. One cannot serve two masters :-)

Cape Conservative makes some very interesting points, particularly about the shopping for real estate in NYC. With typical Clintonian duplicity, the ex-philanderer-in-chief’s First Prevaricator claims that she “just” made the “decision” to form an exploratory committee.

While difficult and painful to watch I was compelled to visit her website and look at the video. Now, I am not a landscaper, meteorologist or have any powers of divination, but if that video was shot in Chappaqua it was not done last week. Or, last month. Or within the past few months. Living in NY I have a pretty good idea what the climate and conditions were last week. If you look out of the window of the video, it does not look like my yard. My bushes have lost their leaves and my grass somewhat spotty. Her foliage looks more like late spring than mid-winter.

I am not suggesting that this was filmed months in advance and that both she and BJ, when making noisy protestations denying a run for Her Thighness said anything but the 100% God’s Honest Truth!

Oh, wait, yes I am. I fergetted I was talking about the Clinton’s. (For some reason, disbarment, impeachment, perjury, obstruction of justice and other terms come to mind.) They can’t even START a campaign without falling back to their stock in trade, lying.

But, wait, there’s more!

Watching this horrid video is analogous to an act of self-flagellation. Her visage and lies not withstanding, her special weather cycle unique to her home are not enough! The camera pans back and forth almost continuously. It is not for the weakhearted. But, if you can stomach this cavalcade of canard then you should be able to watch it. I wonder if the cameraperson (see, I am politically correct!) is one of us, panning the camera to make the subliminal “no” throughout the entire litany of lies.

Lastly, an excellent suggestion regarding the runners for positions! Make them resign. If they put up any fuss now, how much fuss will they create later on! Begone! Run or sit, you can not eat your cake and have it too!

God Bless and God Speed
John

Begone indeed!

Thanks for your comments, Jack. Guess I'll have to subject myself to torture and watch "the" video - ugh!

Thanks, JOHN! Your signature keeps me thinking "Jack"

Cape Conservative:

I am sure that had Hillaroo’s little vignette been played at Abu Gharib or beautiful downtown Gitmo, the ALCU would be screeching “cruel and unusual” punishment.

You call yourself “Cape Conservative.” Does this have anything to do with Cape Cod (a lovely place indeed) or perhaps a take off on Batman, the "Caped Crusader?" The reason why I ask is that of late I have received a number of emails in response to The Daily Fish and many of them have come from some very liberal parts of our country. Perhaps if we all reached out to other right thinking people we would find that ours are not the only voices in the wilderness, that there are good Conservatives in San Francisco, New York, Boston, Berkeley, Oregon, Taos and other putatively liberal enclaves.

As far as John/Jack, well, my name is John and the A and K represent my middle and Confirmation names. I have been called Jack and I will answer to that. I have been called worse!

God Bless and God Speed
John

Cape Conservative:

I am sure that had Hillaroo’s little vignette been played at Abu Gharib or beautiful downtown Gitmo, the ALCU would be screeching “cruel and unusual” punishment.

You call yourself “Cape Conservative.” Does this have anything to do with Cape Cod (a lovely place indeed) or perhaps a take off on Batman, the "Caped Crusader?" The reason why I ask is that of late I have received a number of emails in response to The Daily Fish and many of them have come from some very liberal parts of our country. Perhaps if we all reached out to other right thinking people we would find that ours are not the only voices in the wilderness, that there are good Conservatives in San Francisco, New York, Boston, Berkeley, Oregon, Taos and other putatively liberal enclaves.

As far as John/Jack, well, my name is John and the A and K represent my middle and Confirmation names. I have been called Jack and I will answer to that. I have been called worse!

God Bless and God Speed
John

No cape, John/Jack Yes, I am a "lonely little petunia in an onion patch" (Cape Cod - about the only area of MA that has a conservative or two) You wake up with a bellyache every day thinking about the politics of this liberal land - who else gets to have both Ted Kennedy and John Kerry to represent them?!? And now a liberal governor who will lead us straight into "the land of entitlement" - it was already bad enough!

Cape:

I am not sure if I am much better off with Her Thighness and the notoriously camera-shy Chucky Schumer as senators. Oh, yes, we have a new governor as well, Elliot Spitzer who is about as liberal as they come. Fortunately I have a good guy as a Congressman, Pete King.

We are stuck with the liberals until we vote them out. All we can do now it try to annoy them more than they annoy us. The problem is that they are bothering us full time where this is just sort of a hobby for me!

God Bless and God Speed
John

Pssst....

Was I the only one who noticed that a lot of the protestors in Washington DC over the weekend left the demonstrations early against killing innocent Iraqi civilians to attend a Pro-Choice rally?

God Bless and God Speed
John

I was in an airport Friday trying to read Doro Bush's book on GHWB when a march participant sat beside me...carrying on a very animated (why do cell phone users always talk so loud) conversation about heading to DC. I finally had to move in order to process what I was reading! I did let her see the book cover, however :-) The hardest part of understanding liberal beliefs is that they do not see the incongruity of it all! Don't kill Don't kill Don't kill and then Abort Abort Abort!!!!!

Cape:

"The hardest part of understanding liberal beliefs is that they do not see the incongruity of it all! Don't kill Don't kill Don't kill and then Abort Abort Abort!!!!!"

You, good sir have just synthesized liberalism.

"I support the troops, so bring them home."

"I am pro-family AND pro-choice."

"I voted for it before voted against it."

And the liberals call conservatives Orwellian? (I guess I just answered my own question!)

God Bless and God Speed
John

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

URL:
Remember me? YesNo

Comments: