(2007-12-13) — Happy days are here again on the ‘Hillary for President’ campaign bus after the New York Senator announced she had picked up the endorsement of Dorothy Rodham, an influential woman whose daughter has served as First Lady, and in the U.S. Senate.
With Sen. Barack Obama surging in the polls, threatening to upset Sen. Clinton in Iowa and New Hampshire, advisers feared the Rodham endorsement might go to the charismatic senator from Illinois.
“Hillary never gave up on me,” said Mrs. Rodham, “The phone calls, the emails, the talk of potential cabinet posts — she can be quite persuasive.”
Like Oprah Winfrey, Mrs. Rodham said her support of one candidate doesn’t mean she opposes the others.
“I’m for Hillary,” she said, “not against Obama, who is very likable. It came down to which candidate asked for my support.”
Sen. Clinton said, “Snagging Dorothy Rodham’s endorsement is simply more evidence that I’m in, and I’m in to win.”
31 responses so far ↓
1 camojack // Dec 13, 2007 at 7:31 pm
I wish somebody would beat Hillary; physically, metaphorically, whatever…
2 JamesonLewis3rd // Dec 13, 2007 at 8:03 pm
I would not be the least bit surprised if this bizarre election season were to be followed by several millennia of Republican control of the Hill.
Not only has the Democrat party demonstrated its ineptitude, re governing, with retina-searing clarity but (egad, getting a six month head start) they have been demonstrating their obsequious narcissism with startlingly crisp audio/video as they ride the Leftist wave of the idolatrous MSM.
Rank-and-file Democrats can’t be liking this sideshow, can they?
3 JamesonLewis3rd // Dec 13, 2007 at 8:11 pm
Merry Christmas
Happy New Year
God Bless America
4 mindknumbed kid // Dec 13, 2007 at 8:23 pm
I am so glad I am not registered with THAT party. If these are the best candidates they can offer up they are in dire straights.
5 Fred Sinclair // Dec 13, 2007 at 8:57 pm
Rush today advised Obama to watch his back; his front; and both sides.
Mrs. William Jefferson Clinton seems to be totally obsessed with becoming President that it’s akin to Lyndon B. Johnson’s obsession with that office. After John F. Kennedy told him that he (Johnson) would not be his running mate going for re-election - Johnson had only one recourse, so he had the matter resolved right there in Texas.
I believe Rush is right. If Mrs, Clinton should ever come to believe that Obama is a real and serious threat to her Presidency…..There’s the murder of deputy White House counsel Vincent Foster. We have been told that Foster’s death has been thoroughly investigated by our government and media - history may very well show that the criminal cover-up was as bad as the murder itself.
Rush is aware of the degree of her obsession; anything or anyone that gets in her way…..will be dealt with accordingly. If she does get her party’s nomination - Either Fred Thompson or Mike Huckabee will beat her (even though I prefer Duncan Hunter).
Heirborn Ranger
6 mindknumbed kid // Dec 13, 2007 at 8:59 pm
Strangely enough my dog has yet to endorse a candidate. Even stranger is that none of them have even solicited his endorsement…..
7 gafisher // Dec 13, 2007 at 9:00 pm
Don’t kid yourself, JL#; the Dem faithful believe they’ve got an embarrassment of riches, their only problem being that they must ultimately vote for just one.
At a time.
8 mindknumbed kid // Dec 13, 2007 at 9:12 pm
Something is going to swing the pendulum back to Hillary, I don’t know what it might be, but it will happen somehow. I would certainly hope that any of the (R) candidates could and would beat her,but nothing surprises me in our nation these days. You have the duped, the ignorant, the ones that are led around by a ring in their noses by the LSM, and the anti-christian true hate mongers.
I however, prefer Dunkin’ Donuts to a liberal marxist socialist Godless candidate.
9 camojack // Dec 13, 2007 at 9:15 pm
Oh, they’ve got an embarrassment, all right.
But they’re clueless as to the nature thereof…
10 mindknumbed kid // Dec 13, 2007 at 9:37 pm
9 Dems say no to Christmas resolution …..
Democrats cast all the no votes. Beside McDermott, the other dissenting votes came from Reps. Gary Ackerman and Yvette Clarke of New York; Barbara Lee, Pete Stark and Lynn Woolsey of California; Diana DeGette of Colorado; Alcee Hastings of Florida; and Bobby Scott of Virginia……
I think there’s an anti-Christian bias,” said Rep. Steve King, who sponsored the resolution. “I would not have thought that five or 10 years ago that we’d need to make a statement” affirming the importance of Christmas and Christianity.
King’s resolution stated that Christianity was the predominant faith in the United States and contributed greatly to the development of the country and Western civilization.
“I’ve watched Christ be eradicated by ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union) lawsuits and people be afraid of confrontations. They wish (people) ‘happy holidays’ but not ‘Merry Christmas’ because they might be offended,” King, R-Iowa, told the Seattle Post-Intelligencer.
11 mindknumbed kid // Dec 13, 2007 at 9:39 pm
Americans overwhelmingly support allowing public Christmas displays at least if they are part of a display that includes symbols of other faiths and holiday traditions — more than eight-in-ten (83%) say that displays of Christmas symbols such as nativity scenes and Christmas trees should be allowed on government property, while 11% say that such displays should not be allowed……
Will anyone ask Hillary or Barack where they stand on the issue ?
12 mindknumbed kid // Dec 13, 2007 at 9:48 pm
Rep. Jim McDermott supported House resolutions this fall to recognize the Islamic holiday of Ramadan and the festival of Diwali, celebrated by Hindus, Sikhs and Jains.
But the Washington Democrat drew the line at Christmas.
McDermott voted Tuesday against a resolution to recognize the importance of Christmas and the Christian faith…..
We’ll call them the ANYTHING BUT Christmas crew.
13 mindknumbed kid // Dec 13, 2007 at 9:51 pm
I wonder what would have happened if they would have voted on this 40 years ago and some representatives had voted NO….would they have dared ? I think not…
14 mindknumbed kid // Dec 13, 2007 at 9:58 pm
I know, he says it’s a protest vote on account of S chip veto by the President, well why not just elect Hillary and let her confiscate ALL of Bill Gates and Warren Buffet’s money for the children ? Take all of BIG OIL and BIG TOBACCO and BIG MAC’s profits and help the needy uninsured children ?
While they’re at it just send every bum that won’t work a check too, it’s only FAIR that all Americans share in the prosperity…..
15 mindknumbed kid // Dec 13, 2007 at 10:01 pm
What good is S chip to them when we are all gonna destroy the planet with carbon emissions anyhow ?
16 mindknumbed kid // Dec 13, 2007 at 10:04 pm
FREE sunburn treatment at the local Hillarycare center !
17 JamesonLewis3rd // Dec 13, 2007 at 10:58 pm
“The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel” — which means, “God with us.”~~Matthew 1:23
18 JamesonLewis3rd // Dec 13, 2007 at 11:01 pm
RE: #17~~
Quoting Isaiah 7:14
19 Ms RightWing, Ink // Dec 13, 2007 at 11:04 pm
God bless mothers, they stand by their white daughters even though they marry black presidents.
BTW, what does that make Chelsy, a Mulato?
20 Fred Sinclair // Dec 13, 2007 at 11:09 pm
I’ve said it before and will continue to repeat - The number one oxymoron of the 20th and 21st century is “Christian Democrat”.
In my 70 years, I’ve never once met a fellow Christian who was also a Democrat and I’ve never met a Democrat who did not hate Christians.
Heirborn Ranger
21 Fred Sinclair // Dec 13, 2007 at 11:17 pm
# 19 “Mulato?” I thought that word went out with “quadroon” and “octroon”, it’s refreshing to know it’s not forgotten.
Heirborn Ranger
22 JamesonLewis3rd // Dec 13, 2007 at 11:21 pm
RE: #7~~
Alas.
I was, I suppose, being a bit lenient with my “benefit of the doubt” …..oh, well…..
23 MajorDomo // Dec 14, 2007 at 12:25 am
Don’t get too cocky about Hillary’s constant goofs and displays of incompetence. Remember that even the least competent and qualified need only to be sly enough, slick enough, to fool a large segment of the population. How else do you explain the re-election of Der Schlickmeister, even after the public had observed the constant stream of lies and scandals emanating from the Clinton White House? Bottom line: The whole idea is ‘image-building” (image=something that ain’t, that looks like it is), and that’s where marketing geniuses come in. With the help of the MSM doofusses, the Clinton attack squad and the image-makers will make Hillary look like George Washington incarnate by next November.
24 Senator Hillary Clinton // Dec 14, 2007 at 5:08 am
[...] Hillary Beats Obama to Dorothy Rodham Endorsement [...]
25 gafisher // Dec 14, 2007 at 9:14 am
The endorsement might lose credibility if the video is released of Dorothy Rodham arriving at the Debate, shaking Edwards’ hand, huhhing Hillary, and handing Obama her luggage …
26 JamesonLewis3rd // Dec 14, 2007 at 9:16 am
Merry Christmas, Everybody!
27 gafisher // Dec 14, 2007 at 9:20 am
(hugging … must’a had me keyboard upside-down)
28 Ms RightWing, Ink // Dec 14, 2007 at 9:31 am
zip
29 mig // Dec 14, 2007 at 9:56 am
It’s refreshing to see Clinton Family Values displayed.
30 da Bunny // Dec 14, 2007 at 11:56 am
Ms RightWing #19 and gafisher #25…
You two are a laugh-riot!!
31 da Bunny // Dec 14, 2007 at 12:04 pm
Btw, regarding der Schliekmeister’s “color,” isn’t it so true to form how the LSM totally swept under the rug Andrew Young’s comment that “Bill Clinton has gone with more black women than Barack.”? Imagine if a black conservative such as Michael Steele, J.C. Watts, or Thomas Sowell had made such a comment…
You must log in to post a comment.