It's all so clear. Hillary's gotten her "high negatives" the hard way: she's earned them.

[hisownpetard]

After the behavior she's exhibited in the last couple weeks, it's easier for me to understand why Hillary Clinton has always had such "high negatives."

She's earned them - e.g. by saying how "honored" (x3) she is to be sharing the dais with her opponent and then stabbing him on his way off the stage.

She has reached the level of being George-Bush-duplicitous; and, like Bush, shows no remorse but, instead, keeps repeating the offensive remarks.

Her praise for McCain proves that she puts her own aspirations above the good of the people and the Democratic party, promoting
the candidacy of a war-hungry Bush-loving Republican robot over Obama, rather than face off squarely and take part in a clean fight.

(And, btw, has anyone noticed that, until the series of debates was over, she referred to the major other candidate as "Barack," but since then she only refers to him
as "my opponent"...)

And now she wants to disregard the rules when it appears that the rules are not in her favor. She wants FL and MI to be seated - even though the rules
were laid out and approved before those two states decided to disregard them. Makes no difference to her that the penalty for disregarding the rules was known
in advance of their actions. Makes no difference to her that Obama's name wasn't even on the ballot in Michigan, and no campaigning was allowed in either state.
Hillary wants to disregard all those bothersome little facts and have Fl and MI seated. Why? Because she says so!!

I ask you - does this not sound like someone who might sign a bill into law with a dramatic flourish and then, as soon as the cameras are gone, pull
a "signing statement" from the drawer and negate everything she just promised?

We've already had 7 years of a President who doesn't give a damn.

We don't need another one, even if it's a "she" who has a "D" after her name.

I'm for Obama all the way.