<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Fool Me Twice&#8230;</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.oliverwillis.com/2005/12/27/fool-me-twice/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.oliverwillis.com/2005/12/27/fool-me-twice/</link>
	<description>Like Kryptonite To Stupid</description>
	<pubDate>Sat, 22 Nov 2008 14:18:15 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.2</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Ryland</title>
		<link>http://www.oliverwillis.com/2005/12/27/fool-me-twice/#comment-17063</link>
		<dc:creator>Ryland</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 30 Dec 2005 10:12:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://improveman.com/ow2008/?p=1144#comment-17063</guid>
		<description>Oops... where I said above, "All I can say is that in experience", it should have been "All I can say is that in &lt;i&gt;my&lt;/i&gt; experience".
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Oops&#8230; where I said above, &#8220;All I can say is that in experience&#8221;, it should have been &#8220;All I can say is that in <i>my</i> experience&#8221;.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ryland</title>
		<link>http://www.oliverwillis.com/2005/12/27/fool-me-twice/#comment-17062</link>
		<dc:creator>Ryland</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 30 Dec 2005 10:12:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://improveman.com/ow2008/?p=1144#comment-17062</guid>
		<description>&lt;blockquote&gt;1)  Ha - ha  was not the piece of your comment I had trouble with. It was the part, which, of course, you have still failed to explain.&lt;/blockquote&gt;

&lt;a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nelson_Muntz" rel="nofollow"&gt;Nelson&lt;/a&gt; is the character on The Simpsons that says "HA-ha". It may have been stripped out of your comment by the HTML filter; I got the brackets to show up by using HTML entities &#62; and &#60;. If that doesn't explain it for you, forget it, it really wasn't that important anyway.

&lt;blockquote&gt;2) There is a significance to the FACT that when Republicans are polled, they choose Condoleezza Rice as their  fantasy candidate , despite the fact that she has indicated that she doesn t want to run for President.
a) People   yes, Republican people   are saying that if she were the candidate, they would vote for her. Get it, Ryland? Republicans would VOTE for her.&lt;/blockquote&gt;

Point me to some polls. Polls conducted on CondiWorship CondiPundit don't count.

&lt;blockquote&gt;3) Democrats are the only ones saying that Republicans would never would vote for a woman, let alone a black woman. Get it, Ryland? Only Democrats.&lt;/blockquote&gt;

Well yeah, what do you think, Republicans are going to admit that they're racists and sexists? (Well, some here in Texas will, but most places, people are more circumspect.)

&lt;blockquote&gt;4) None of you liberal automotons on these threads have offered any information to the effect that there is someone to beat Sen. Clinton, or someone to beat Secretary Rice. You just keep saying the same thing over and over. It s just a mantra, not even speculation. And you call me a writer of fan fiction.&lt;/blockquote&gt;

I don't know who could beat her, and furthermore I don't care. I don't have any plans to vote Democratic, no matter what candidate they field. All I can say is that in experience, it's only Republicans who talk up Hillary as the Democratic nominee, because that's who you guys want the Democrats to run. I don't think it's going to happen.

&lt;blockquote&gt;Finally, if any of you left wing robots had ever read CondiPundit, you would find little or no speculation on my part as to Secretary Rice s chances of being elected President.&lt;/blockquote&gt;

Well, seeing as the next election is still a couple of years away, and seeing as nobody knows what will happen between now and then, it's &lt;i&gt;all&lt;/i&gt; speculation. Has Condi ever mentioned any possibility of running?

Anyhow... you seem pretty positive. Does that mean you accept the bet? $20 says neither of them gets the nomination. I'll pay up even if only one of them gets the nomination for her respective party, either one. I'm putting my money where my mouth is, Frank.
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<blockquote><p>1)  Ha - ha  was not the piece of your comment I had trouble with. It was the part, which, of course, you have still failed to explain.</p></blockquote>
<p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nelson_Muntz" rel="nofollow">Nelson</a> is the character on The Simpsons that says &#8220;HA-ha&#8221;. It may have been stripped out of your comment by the HTML filter; I got the brackets to show up by using HTML entities &gt; and &lt;. If that doesn&#8217;t explain it for you, forget it, it really wasn&#8217;t that important anyway.</p>
<blockquote><p>2) There is a significance to the FACT that when Republicans are polled, they choose Condoleezza Rice as their  fantasy candidate , despite the fact that she has indicated that she doesn t want to run for President.<br />
a) People   yes, Republican people   are saying that if she were the candidate, they would vote for her. Get it, Ryland? Republicans would VOTE for her.</p></blockquote>
<p>Point me to some polls. Polls conducted on CondiWorship CondiPundit don&#8217;t count.</p>
<blockquote><p>3) Democrats are the only ones saying that Republicans would never would vote for a woman, let alone a black woman. Get it, Ryland? Only Democrats.</p></blockquote>
<p>Well yeah, what do you think, Republicans are going to admit that they&#8217;re racists and sexists? (Well, some here in Texas will, but most places, people are more circumspect.)</p>
<blockquote><p>4) None of you liberal automotons on these threads have offered any information to the effect that there is someone to beat Sen. Clinton, or someone to beat Secretary Rice. You just keep saying the same thing over and over. It s just a mantra, not even speculation. And you call me a writer of fan fiction.</p></blockquote>
<p>I don&#8217;t know who could beat her, and furthermore I don&#8217;t care. I don&#8217;t have any plans to vote Democratic, no matter what candidate they field. All I can say is that in experience, it&#8217;s only Republicans who talk up Hillary as the Democratic nominee, because that&#8217;s who you guys want the Democrats to run. I don&#8217;t think it&#8217;s going to happen.</p>
<blockquote><p>Finally, if any of you left wing robots had ever read CondiPundit, you would find little or no speculation on my part as to Secretary Rice s chances of being elected President.</p></blockquote>
<p>Well, seeing as the next election is still a couple of years away, and seeing as nobody knows what will happen between now and then, it&#8217;s <i>all</i> speculation. Has Condi ever mentioned any possibility of running?</p>
<p>Anyhow&#8230; you seem pretty positive. Does that mean you accept the bet? $20 says neither of them gets the nomination. I&#8217;ll pay up even if only one of them gets the nomination for her respective party, either one. I&#8217;m putting my money where my mouth is, Frank.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Quaker in a Basement</title>
		<link>http://www.oliverwillis.com/2005/12/27/fool-me-twice/#comment-17061</link>
		<dc:creator>Quaker in a Basement</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 29 Dec 2005 23:12:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://improveman.com/ow2008/?p=1144#comment-17061</guid>
		<description>&lt;blockquote&gt;Finally, if any of you left wing robots had ever read CondiPundit, you would find little or no speculation on my part as to Secretary Rice s chances of being elected President.
&lt;/blockquote&gt;

You mean we won't see anything like &lt;a href="http://www.condipundit.com/?p=322" rel="nofollow"&gt; this?&lt;/a&gt;
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<blockquote><p>Finally, if any of you left wing robots had ever read CondiPundit, you would find little or no speculation on my part as to Secretary Rice s chances of being elected President.
</p></blockquote>
<p>You mean we won&#8217;t see anything like <a href="http://www.condipundit.com/?p=322" rel="nofollow"> this?</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Frank_D</title>
		<link>http://www.oliverwillis.com/2005/12/27/fool-me-twice/#comment-17060</link>
		<dc:creator>Frank_D</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 29 Dec 2005 03:12:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://improveman.com/ow2008/?p=1144#comment-17060</guid>
		<description>Ryland, next Christmas, ask Santa for the brain you didn't get this year.

1) "Ha - ha" was not the piece of your comment I had trouble with. It was the     part, which, of course, you have still failed to explain.

2) There is a significance to the FACT that when Republicans are polled, they choose Condoleezza Rice as their "fantasy candidate", despite the fact that she has indicated that she doesn't want to run for President.
a) People -- yes, Republican people -- are  saying that if she were the candidate, they would vote for her. Get it, Ryland? Republicans would VOTE for her.

3) Democrats are the only ones saying that Republicans would never would vote for a woman, let alone a black woman. Get it, Ryland? Only Democrats.

4) None of you liberal automotons on these threads have offered any information to the effect that there is someone to beat Sen. Clinton, or someone to beat Secretary Rice. You just keep saying the same thing over and over. It's just a mantra, not even speculation. And you call me a writer of fan fiction.

Finally, if any of you left wing robots had ever read  CondiPundit, you would find little or no speculation on my part as to Secretary Rice's chances of being elected President.
But, of course, it wouldn't be the first time a member of "Oliver's Army" shot his mouth off without knowing what he was talking about. Get it, Ryland?
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Ryland, next Christmas, ask Santa for the brain you didn&#8217;t get this year.</p>
<p>1) &#8220;Ha - ha&#8221; was not the piece of your comment I had trouble with. It was the     part, which, of course, you have still failed to explain.</p>
<p>2) There is a significance to the FACT that when Republicans are polled, they choose Condoleezza Rice as their &#8220;fantasy candidate&#8221;, despite the fact that she has indicated that she doesn&#8217;t want to run for President.<br />
a) People &#8212; yes, Republican people &#8212; are  saying that if she were the candidate, they would vote for her. Get it, Ryland? Republicans would VOTE for her.</p>
<p>3) Democrats are the only ones saying that Republicans would never would vote for a woman, let alone a black woman. Get it, Ryland? Only Democrats.</p>
<p>4) None of you liberal automotons on these threads have offered any information to the effect that there is someone to beat Sen. Clinton, or someone to beat Secretary Rice. You just keep saying the same thing over and over. It&#8217;s just a mantra, not even speculation. And you call me a writer of fan fiction.</p>
<p>Finally, if any of you left wing robots had ever read  CondiPundit, you would find little or no speculation on my part as to Secretary Rice&#8217;s chances of being elected President.<br />
But, of course, it wouldn&#8217;t be the first time a member of &#8220;Oliver&#8217;s Army&#8221; shot his mouth off without knowing what he was talking about. Get it, Ryland?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Frank_D</title>
		<link>http://www.oliverwillis.com/2005/12/27/fool-me-twice/#comment-17059</link>
		<dc:creator>Frank_D</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 29 Dec 2005 03:12:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://improveman.com/ow2008/?p=1144#comment-17059</guid>
		<description>The part that disappeared from the post above was
the part you never explained
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The part that disappeared from the post above was<br />
the part you never explained</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: withinreason</title>
		<link>http://www.oliverwillis.com/2005/12/27/fool-me-twice/#comment-17058</link>
		<dc:creator>withinreason</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 29 Dec 2005 03:12:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://improveman.com/ow2008/?p=1144#comment-17058</guid>
		<description>Oliver,on your reference to Hillary,I know she seems to be trying to stay in the middle but,,,I believe it is nothing more than a ploy. And to tell you the truth I do'nt understand why Liberal would be a bad word,it seems they knock us just because we want to be free and think high of liberty. Have you noticed lately how the "right" has come to the aid of upholding the spying issue? It seems the "right" wants the government to be in charge of everything,kinda like socialism. But ms. Hillary needs to make clear her intentions and not ride the fence on some things,I just do'nt believe she is so much in the middle of the road as she says? But then again I do'nt know how Kerry lost after making Bush look like a fool on national t.v?? At any rate let us hope that it is only a ploy from Ms.Clinton,we've had enough of "right" to do us all a lifetime..
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Oliver,on your reference to Hillary,I know she seems to be trying to stay in the middle but,,,I believe it is nothing more than a ploy. And to tell you the truth I do&#8217;nt understand why Liberal would be a bad word,it seems they knock us just because we want to be free and think high of liberty. Have you noticed lately how the &#8220;right&#8221; has come to the aid of upholding the spying issue? It seems the &#8220;right&#8221; wants the government to be in charge of everything,kinda like socialism. But ms. Hillary needs to make clear her intentions and not ride the fence on some things,I just do&#8217;nt believe she is so much in the middle of the road as she says? But then again I do&#8217;nt know how Kerry lost after making Bush look like a fool on national t.v?? At any rate let us hope that it is only a ploy from Ms.Clinton,we&#8217;ve had enough of &#8220;right&#8221; to do us all a lifetime..</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Frank_D</title>
		<link>http://www.oliverwillis.com/2005/12/27/fool-me-twice/#comment-17057</link>
		<dc:creator>Frank_D</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 29 Dec 2005 03:12:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://improveman.com/ow2008/?p=1144#comment-17057</guid>
		<description>OK, I'm not sure why it won't print, but it involves bracketed "nelsons"
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>OK, I&#8217;m not sure why it won&#8217;t print, but it involves bracketed &#8220;nelsons&#8221;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Dugger</title>
		<link>http://www.oliverwillis.com/2005/12/27/fool-me-twice/#comment-17056</link>
		<dc:creator>Dugger</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 28 Dec 2005 16:12:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://improveman.com/ow2008/?p=1144#comment-17056</guid>
		<description>Trevor,

"Nevermind."

Uhh. Don't worry.  Some of your other,  earlier  descriptors had already caused me to 'nevermind'.

Dugger
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Trevor,</p>
<p>&#8220;Nevermind.&#8221;</p>
<p>Uhh. Don&#8217;t worry.  Some of your other,  earlier  descriptors had already caused me to &#8216;nevermind&#8217;.</p>
<p>Dugger</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: trevorwells</title>
		<link>http://www.oliverwillis.com/2005/12/27/fool-me-twice/#comment-17055</link>
		<dc:creator>trevorwells</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 28 Dec 2005 13:12:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://improveman.com/ow2008/?p=1144#comment-17055</guid>
		<description>Dugger,

Y'all would be better off with Matinee' Mitt Romney.  He is an empty headed wingnut with a penchant for good public relations. Stop the Presses!!!  That's exactly what we have now. Nevermind.
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Dugger,</p>
<p>Y&#8217;all would be better off with Matinee&#8217; Mitt Romney.  He is an empty headed wingnut with a penchant for good public relations. Stop the Presses!!!  That&#8217;s exactly what we have now. Nevermind.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: dugger1</title>
		<link>http://www.oliverwillis.com/2005/12/27/fool-me-twice/#comment-17054</link>
		<dc:creator>dugger1</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 28 Dec 2005 12:12:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://improveman.com/ow2008/?p=1144#comment-17054</guid>
		<description>Whatever you think of her, Hillary is not an idiot.  She heeded the results of the Va. off year election and will continue to follow a centrist-right (for Ds)  'Warner" path.  Nothing will get her elected faster than broad scale opposition from the deranged left - from the likes of the Ms Sheehan and her ilk.

My cynical take is that there will be no difference between Guiliani and a moderate Clinton (both liberal New Yorkers) and since we've got to deal with inevitable Bush-Republican fatigue, minimize the damage with a DLC moderate.  Nothing overtly damaging will get through Congress anyway. Take all of our losses now.  Target 2012.

Dugger
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Whatever you think of her, Hillary is not an idiot.  She heeded the results of the Va. off year election and will continue to follow a centrist-right (for Ds)  &#8216;Warner&#8221; path.  Nothing will get her elected faster than broad scale opposition from the deranged left - from the likes of the Ms Sheehan and her ilk.</p>
<p>My cynical take is that there will be no difference between Guiliani and a moderate Clinton (both liberal New Yorkers) and since we&#8217;ve got to deal with inevitable Bush-Republican fatigue, minimize the damage with a DLC moderate.  Nothing overtly damaging will get through Congress anyway. Take all of our losses now.  Target 2012.</p>
<p>Dugger</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ryland</title>
		<link>http://www.oliverwillis.com/2005/12/27/fool-me-twice/#comment-17053</link>
		<dc:creator>Ryland</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 28 Dec 2005 12:12:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://improveman.com/ow2008/?p=1144#comment-17053</guid>
		<description>&lt;blockquote&gt;Rice shouldn t be president because she s an incompetent ideologue = Rice shouldn t be president because I don t think she should be President.&lt;/blockquote&gt;

Frank, don't you get tired of putting words in peoples' mouths? If you were as intelligent as you are pompous, you might at least be entertaining.

&lt;blockquote&gt;She is going to send Sen. Clinton home crying to Arkansas or Illinois, or wherever she really comes from.&lt;/blockquote&gt;

I'll bet you $20, payable by Paypal, that neither lady will be a candidate.

This Ultimate Showdown you keep talking up is just what Oliver said, fan fiction. Republicans could only &lt;i&gt;dream&lt;/i&gt; that Hilary Clinton gets the Democratic nomination. As for Condi Rice, there's no way in hell the Republican base will vote for a woman, much less a black woman. Let the dream die, Frank, it's not going to happen.
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<blockquote><p>Rice shouldn t be president because she s an incompetent ideologue = Rice shouldn t be president because I don t think she should be President.</p></blockquote>
<p>Frank, don&#8217;t you get tired of putting words in peoples&#8217; mouths? If you were as intelligent as you are pompous, you might at least be entertaining.</p>
<blockquote><p>She is going to send Sen. Clinton home crying to Arkansas or Illinois, or wherever she really comes from.</p></blockquote>
<p>I&#8217;ll bet you $20, payable by Paypal, that neither lady will be a candidate.</p>
<p>This Ultimate Showdown you keep talking up is just what Oliver said, fan fiction. Republicans could only <i>dream</i> that Hilary Clinton gets the Democratic nomination. As for Condi Rice, there&#8217;s no way in hell the Republican base will vote for a woman, much less a black woman. Let the dream die, Frank, it&#8217;s not going to happen.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ryland</title>
		<link>http://www.oliverwillis.com/2005/12/27/fool-me-twice/#comment-17052</link>
		<dc:creator>Ryland</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 28 Dec 2005 11:12:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://improveman.com/ow2008/?p=1144#comment-17052</guid>
		<description>You: &lt;i&gt;I find it interesting that people like Oliver can t bring themselves to say that Secretary Rice shouldn t be President&lt;/i&gt;

Oliver: &lt;i&gt;Rice shouldn t be president&lt;/i&gt;

Me: &lt;i&gt;HA-ha&lt;/i&gt;

Get it?
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You: <i>I find it interesting that people like Oliver can t bring themselves to say that Secretary Rice shouldn t be President</i></p>
<p>Oliver: <i>Rice shouldn t be president</i></p>
<p>Me: <i>HA-ha</i></p>
<p>Get it?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Frank_D</title>
		<link>http://www.oliverwillis.com/2005/12/27/fool-me-twice/#comment-17051</link>
		<dc:creator>Frank_D</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 28 Dec 2005 10:12:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://improveman.com/ow2008/?p=1144#comment-17051</guid>
		<description>Rice shouldn t be president because she s an incompetent ideologue = Rice shouldn t be president because I don't think she should be President.

She is going to send Sen. Clinton home crying to Arkansas or Illinois, or wherever she really comes from.

And, Ryland, what the hell was that comment about? You better stay away from that pipe, boy!
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Rice shouldn t be president because she s an incompetent ideologue = Rice shouldn t be president because I don&#8217;t think she should be President.</p>
<p>She is going to send Sen. Clinton home crying to Arkansas or Illinois, or wherever she really comes from.</p>
<p>And, Ryland, what the hell was that comment about? You better stay away from that pipe, boy!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ryland</title>
		<link>http://www.oliverwillis.com/2005/12/27/fool-me-twice/#comment-17050</link>
		<dc:creator>Ryland</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 28 Dec 2005 06:12:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://improveman.com/ow2008/?p=1144#comment-17050</guid>
		<description>HA-ha
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>HA-ha</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Oliver Willis</title>
		<link>http://www.oliverwillis.com/2005/12/27/fool-me-twice/#comment-17049</link>
		<dc:creator>Oliver Willis</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 28 Dec 2005 03:12:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://improveman.com/ow2008/?p=1144#comment-17049</guid>
		<description>Rice shouldn't be president because she's an incompetent ideologue. She won't be president because of that and the fact that she's a black woman. Current polls for either party are meaningless at this point, based solely on name recognitition - which is why Clinton, Giuliani, Rice, and McCain all poll well.
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Rice shouldn&#8217;t be president because she&#8217;s an incompetent ideologue. She won&#8217;t be president because of that and the fact that she&#8217;s a black woman. Current polls for either party are meaningless at this point, based solely on name recognitition - which is why Clinton, Giuliani, Rice, and McCain all poll well.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Frank_D</title>
		<link>http://www.oliverwillis.com/2005/12/27/fool-me-twice/#comment-17048</link>
		<dc:creator>Frank_D</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 28 Dec 2005 03:12:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://improveman.com/ow2008/?p=1144#comment-17048</guid>
		<description>I find it interesting that people like Oliver can't bring themselves to say that Secretary Rice shouldn't be President, or that she couldn't be President, but rather that the Republicans would never nominate her.

Why is that interesting? Because even though the Secretary has supposedly "declared" that she doesn't want to be President, she is still the most desirable of Presidential candidates when Reublicans are polled.

Where is a similar poll amongst Democratic possibilities? Is Edwards at the top? Is Sen. Clinton at the top?
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I find it interesting that people like Oliver can&#8217;t bring themselves to say that Secretary Rice shouldn&#8217;t be President, or that she couldn&#8217;t be President, but rather that the Republicans would never nominate her.</p>
<p>Why is that interesting? Because even though the Secretary has supposedly &#8220;declared&#8221; that she doesn&#8217;t want to be President, she is still the most desirable of Presidential candidates when Reublicans are polled.</p>
<p>Where is a similar poll amongst Democratic possibilities? Is Edwards at the top? Is Sen. Clinton at the top?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Frank_D</title>
		<link>http://www.oliverwillis.com/2005/12/27/fool-me-twice/#comment-17047</link>
		<dc:creator>Frank_D</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 28 Dec 2005 03:12:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://improveman.com/ow2008/?p=1144#comment-17047</guid>
		<description>Sorry, Cleo, your comment only rates a "C". While the "locker metaphor" might be the first comprehensible metaphor you've ever employed, the "you asked for it" theme is fake and takes away nearly all the merit of the comment. &lt;i&gt;C'est dommage&lt;/i&gt;.
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Sorry, Cleo, your comment only rates a &#8220;C&#8221;. While the &#8220;locker metaphor&#8221; might be the first comprehensible metaphor you&#8217;ve ever employed, the &#8220;you asked for it&#8221; theme is fake and takes away nearly all the merit of the comment. <i>C&#8217;est dommage</i>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: neoconvict</title>
		<link>http://www.oliverwillis.com/2005/12/27/fool-me-twice/#comment-17046</link>
		<dc:creator>neoconvict</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 28 Dec 2005 01:12:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://improveman.com/ow2008/?p=1144#comment-17046</guid>
		<description>Hillary is an embarrassment. "Neocon Lite" I believe she was referred to on another site. She's trying to do the Bill Clinton trick of pissing off the left (remember how Bill dissed Sister Souljah) in order to embrace the center. But the thing is that the moderate right HATES her, so this strategy is moronic. All she's going to do is piss off everyone with a brain. And since she refuses to address election fraud, she stands no chance of winning anyway.

Oh yeah, and one thing Hillary leaves off her resume--she was chief counsel for Wal-Mart! Need we say more?

Now one senator who does deserve our support is BOXER. She was the only one with the stones to stand up against the seating of the electors in the stolen 2004 election. Please sign the petition below urging Senator Boxer to take the lead on the issue of election fraud:

&lt;a href="http://www.petitiononline.com/boxer123" rel="nofollow"&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.petitiononline.com/boxer123" rel="nofollow"&gt;http://www.petitiononline.com/boxer123&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/a&gt;
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hillary is an embarrassment. &#8220;Neocon Lite&#8221; I believe she was referred to on another site. She&#8217;s trying to do the Bill Clinton trick of pissing off the left (remember how Bill dissed Sister Souljah) in order to embrace the center. But the thing is that the moderate right HATES her, so this strategy is moronic. All she&#8217;s going to do is piss off everyone with a brain. And since she refuses to address election fraud, she stands no chance of winning anyway.</p>
<p>Oh yeah, and one thing Hillary leaves off her resume&#8211;she was chief counsel for Wal-Mart! Need we say more?</p>
<p>Now one senator who does deserve our support is BOXER. She was the only one with the stones to stand up against the seating of the electors in the stolen 2004 election. Please sign the petition below urging Senator Boxer to take the lead on the issue of election fraud:</p>
<p><a href="http://www.petitiononline.com/boxer123" rel="nofollow"></a><a href="http://www.petitiononline.com/boxer123" rel="nofollow">http://www.petitiononline.com/boxer123</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Frank_D</title>
		<link>http://www.oliverwillis.com/2005/12/27/fool-me-twice/#comment-17045</link>
		<dc:creator>Frank_D</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 28 Dec 2005 01:12:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://improveman.com/ow2008/?p=1144#comment-17045</guid>
		<description>As the comments with regard to Rice's candidacy lack any substance, I will view them in that light.

Especially Oliver who has been writing fan fiction about Clinton the First (blessed be his name) for years, and now would have us believe that Clinton the Second would be an unsuitable candidate.

The other interpretation for that article, for those less perceptive than you, comes from Scotland: &lt;a href="http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=2459842005" rel="nofollow"&gt;Will Condoleezza Rice succeed Bush?&lt;/a&gt;
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>As the comments with regard to Rice&#8217;s candidacy lack any substance, I will view them in that light.</p>
<p>Especially Oliver who has been writing fan fiction about Clinton the First (blessed be his name) for years, and now would have us believe that Clinton the Second would be an unsuitable candidate.</p>
<p>The other interpretation for that article, for those less perceptive than you, comes from Scotland: <a href="http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=2459842005" rel="nofollow">Will Condoleezza Rice succeed Bush?</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: tiponeill</title>
		<link>http://www.oliverwillis.com/2005/12/27/fool-me-twice/#comment-17044</link>
		<dc:creator>tiponeill</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 28 Dec 2005 00:12:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://improveman.com/ow2008/?p=1144#comment-17044</guid>
		<description>Considering the party estblishment and leadership, I am afraid she actually may get the nomination.

Which will force many of us to just opt put or vote green again.

She may even win, but if she does I don't see it as much of an improvement over our current administration.
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Considering the party estblishment and leadership, I am afraid she actually may get the nomination.</p>
<p>Which will force many of us to just opt put or vote green again.</p>
<p>She may even win, but if she does I don&#8217;t see it as much of an improvement over our current administration.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
