Pirro is a much better debator than Hillary. She has spent many years as a prosecutor and actually practicing law while Hillary has been riding on the coattails of her husband and plotting her presidential run. Pirro is a true blue New Yorker, and I think when people see them debate, Hillary will be exposed for the fake snake that she is. As much as I hate to say this, a pro-choice rhino has a much better chance at taking Hillary out than a true conservative. We ARE talking about New York!!! Baby steps people!!!
So true in NY. In NY's higher offices, that is the only type that could be elected.
>>As much as I hate to say this, a pro-choice rhino has a much better chance at taking Hillary out than a true conservative. We ARE talking about New York!!! Baby steps people!!!
How about [politically] stepping on babies in a bid to the White House? Pirro or Hillary would [politically] be glad to do that. These two will proably fight to see who is the most pro-abortion....
If she doesn't say, "you know" every other word and do the stupid phony laugh, she'll be a better debater than the Hill gal.
Even if Pirro were 100% in agreement with HRC on the issues, she'd be worth voting for because she's NOT HRC.
The point should be to neutralize HRC; anything beynod that is gravy.
Even if Pirro does not win (IMHO she has a good chance to win), but does better than Hillary's first Senate opponent, it would not look good for Hillary's presidential ambitions.
Maybe Hillary would even withdraw - in honest debates she is no match for Pirro - and concentrate on her presidential campaign. Win or lose, Pirro can damage Hillary's national image.
You are probably right. I'm not crazy at all about Pirro, but the whole point is to cause Hillary to show her true colors. It's likely, though, that she will keep her mouth shut and say as little as possible. She will let her people do the dirty work for as long as possible.