I know I didn't write this, and I really doubt it can be construed from my post, so let's call it willful misinterpretation on your part, OK? So,if you're going to be making prescriptions and offering remedies, well, go ahead and connect the dots, doc.
Fred Thompson is not "presidential."
Hillary Clinton is a "shoe-in."
Now, how did I imply that the former is a consequence of the latter?
PS. People who turn what I said into what you said about what I said make great leftists. Conservatives don't engage in such tactics.
ok...you described all of the top gop candidates as not having presidential mettle, with the exception of Guiliani. That is synonamous with not being presidential. And then you say that Hillary’s victim of Bill status will easily trump Thompson and that all other candidates on both sides are basically weak. I will admitt that the shoe in part was a little exaggerated, but that is the way you came across. And then you accuse me of completely twisting it and acting like a leftist. Please, reread your post and try to be a little objective to your own pessimism which you think is brutal honesty, rather than accusing me of misrepresenting your whole post.