1 posted on
01/19/2010 5:48:25 AM PST by
bmweezer
To: bmweezer
He's not Clinton and he's not Carter.
Sure, there are similarities, but Obama is much WORSE than the two combined.
2 posted on
01/19/2010 5:50:58 AM PST by
edpc
(Those Lefties just ain't right)
To: bmweezer
Disagree. Obama needs a Ross Perot or he will be toast in 2012.
3 posted on
01/19/2010 5:55:38 AM PST by
hflynn
(The One is really the Number Two)
To: bmweezer
History is still history and Bill Clinton was still elected twice with less than 50% of the vote. Any article about Bill Clinton’s good fortune that does not mention Ross Perot is meaningless and silly or just plain dishonest. Bill Clinton DID NOT win reelection in 1996 because of 1994.
Bill Clinton won reelection in 1996 the same way he won the election in 1992: Collusion with Ross Perot.
4 posted on
01/19/2010 5:56:08 AM PST by
whereasandsoforth
(Stamp out liberals with the big boot of truth)
To: bmweezer
Bill Clinton is VERY lucky that the cold war ended before he took office.
1996 would not have been as kind to him had a Soviet threat still been present and after Clinton gutted the military from 1993-1996.
To: bmweezer
For all of his faults, Bill Clinton was a true politician that knew which way the wind blew and acted accordingly.
BS Running against a cipher opponent and as an incumbent and with peace and a booming economy he could get 50% in 96
9 posted on
01/19/2010 6:45:01 AM PST by
uncbob
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson