Er... well, yes, having 1 more than half is a clear majority. Having half openly supporting her means that she might or might not have a majority. #8 makes the majority status 'clear'.

What is amazing is all the bloggers and columnists, Maureen Dowd today, criticizing Hillary, yet amongst the rank and file she steadily keeps moving ahead. Somebody likes her.

Yawn, question for the day. How many hillary winning, victorious, kicking butt, taking no prisoners, unbeatable, etc., headlines can you fit on one page of this site? Anybody?

Any headlines about legit policy positions of her majesty over the last month? Oh, that's right ZERO, other than war and beating war drums.

Is there anybody else running? Why should they, she has it all wrapped up.

Signed, wacko, left-wing, pinko, commie, anti-american, naderite, uninformed, hillary-hater, leftie.

The presidential nominations are still up for grabs. The American people still have a choice, be it for the Democratic or Republican nominee, and, ultimately, for President.

It is high time that voters stop following the mainstream media and fundraising hype like lemmings over a cliff. If you support a candidate, donate to that candidate. Even if it is just a dollar.

If the media is sincere about endorsing candidates who truly have the support of voters, it will begin focusing on the number of contributors to a campaign, rather than the amount of the contributions.

If you agree with this concept and are familiar with Mike Huckabee's message, I urge you to take my challenge by visiting: www.abuckforhuck.com

Help me prove that we are the voice of America.

Shes the consensus of the GOP, the enabling establishment dems. Lets see if she is of the voters.

Hillary's Gall
Mo Dowd

Girlfriend had a rough week. First Hillary got brushed back by the boys in the debate. Then some women bemoaned Hillaryland’s “Don’t hit me, I’m a girl” strategy. ....We underestimate Hillary if we cast her as Eleanor Roosevelt. She’s really Alfonse D’Amato. Not just the Senator Pothole role, but the talent for playing the aggrieved victim. D’Amato pulled off a dramatic upset in ’92 against Robert Abrams, the New York attorney general, by pouncing when Abrams slipped one night and called D’Amato a “fascist.” Though never a sensitive soul about insulting other ethnic groups, D’Amato quickly cast “fascist” as an insult to Italian-Americans, producing an ad with scenes of Mussolini. “It was sheer gall,” Anthony Marsh, D’Amato’s media consultant, proudly told The Times’s Alessandra Stanley Like Alfonse, Hillary has the gift of gall. She can be righteous while playing brass-knuckle politics. She will cozy up to former enemies she can use, like Matt Drudge and David Brock, and back W.’s bellicosity if it helps banish her old image as antimilitary. There is nowhere she won’t go, so long as it gets her where she wants to be. That’s the beauty of Hillary. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/04/opinion/04dowd.html?hp

Jan, I hear that all the time, the "right-wing slime machine propoganda" and statements to that effect. Is that a Clinton II talking point? Otherwise, give me some references to right-winger's saying that all she does is "triple talk." I don't recall Lott, Newt, Rove, the king, any of the king's men or women, McConnell, any of the "family values" crowd, any of the repuke candidates, Fox entertainment, Roger Ailes, Britt "luddite" Hume, William "light-weight" Krisol, or any other leading repuke saying anything even close to what I said. All I hear them say is that she is going to be the dem nominee, she makes a tough candidate, she is the best dem, she gets the GWOT, she understands Iraq more than any of the other dem candidates, she is who the repukes will be facing, watch out she runs a great campaign. That sounds like the right-wing and clinton II propoganda and it's one in the same. Kind of makes you wonder doesn't it.

On her website, that's a waste. Facts, ha, ha, ha, ha. If I want fluff and generalities I'll go there. Otherwise, I guess I'll have to wait to 2012 to get any real information about your candidate. By then, it will be too late. I guess I just have to assume the worst.

I don't get my facts from 30 second sound bites. In fact, I do not watch television. I read and I study. Clinton's web site is not only fluff, but a significant percentage of dishonest fluff. I learned that by taking every claim in every sentence on her website and searching for whatever facts did or did not exist behind the fluff.
That study took me long days last spring, and I have stored my dozens of pages of notes. What took the longest was trying to pin down certain claims on her website, claims presented in vague 'generalities', of legislative initiatives attributed to Clinton. Turned out Senator Clinton has dishonestly taken credit for the work of others. I was and remain furious about wasting my time on that official site. But, having done so exactly is why I am not trusting her or her supporters to do anything beyond offer more fluff.
So, any Hillary supporter who tells us to go to that website, beware. That is a Hillary supporter who hasn't done their own due diligence, and who only wants you to wear blinders and rely on fluffy generalities as they themselves have done.

To put a finer point on it Jan...Read today's newspapers. The US foreign policy, thanks in no small measure to Hillary Clinton, is in full collapse from Waziristan (on her nuke target list) to the Mediterranean.

Why? Because she triangulated a war of aggression for four years until she went for the do-over and then again on Iran...
That's what is known as "Experience" (blah.bleat ba ba in Hillary Hurdu)

She will cozy up to former enemies she can use, like Matt Drudge and David Brock, and back W.’s bellicosity if it helps banish her old image as antimilitary. There is nowhere she won’t go, so long as it gets her where she wants to be. That’s the beauty of Hillary.

Meanwhile, Sargent and Kleefeld parade the Clinton Hackocracy as if it really meant something

Jan you get? Got it? Good for you Jan

John, I don't know what site you think you are on if you believe that all that empty name calling is going to be effective.

Michael, Fair catch on the Florida headline.

If the media kept more of a focus on policy and character it might help voters get more useful information.
However, as a practical matter, candidates who releases details presents a lot of targets to their opponents while
a glowing generality often sells. Reagan's Morning in America is a horrible case in point -- vacuouss but effective.

In the Iowa caucuses voters get the chance to move to their second choice candidate if their first can't make it. There is no such mechanism in an election but reporting on the horse race factors allows the voters to do it themselves. As in 'Oh dear, my favorite candidate is going no where so I have to vote for my second choice or that terrible other guy will be elected.'

While we're on the subject, its worth noting that John Edwards has the most state legislative endorsements in Nevada, with 8.

Girlfriend has a bad week

And Sargent Kleefeld trots out the Inevitabilty Campaign

Quel Surprise!

And here's another

B>Noun + Verb + 9/11 + Iran = Democrats’ Defeat? By FRANK RICH http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/04/opinion/04rich.html?hp=&pagewanted=print WHEN President Bush started making noises about World War III, he only confirmed what has been a Democratic article of faith all year: Between now and Election Day he and Dick Cheney, cheered on by the mob of neocon dead-enders, are going to bomb Iran. But what happens if President Bush does not bomb Iran? That is good news for the world, but potentially terrible news for the Democrats. If we do go to war in Iran, the election will indeed be a referendum on the results, which the Republican Party will own no matter whom it nominates for president. But if we don’t, the Democratic standard-bearer will have to take a clear stand on the defining issue of the race. As we saw once again at Tuesday night’s debate, the front-runner, Hillary Clinton, does not have one....

PS

What site is this?

Oh yeah TPElectHillaryCentral