Posted on 04/07/2005 6:10:32 PM PDT by yoe
An extreme liberal woman ? Not according to this poll.
After all, no on in the Senate had a more extreme voting record as a cultural liberal than Kerry and look how close he got. Hillary can walk into a church and look as if she is used to being in one. Kerry never could. Hillary lived in Red America for years and knows its workings. Kerry never did. Kerry's Vietnam activities were of a more extreme nature than anything that can be attributed to Hillary but look how close he got. Hillary has the common touch. Kerry ? Don't get me started. Hillary will get minority votes that Kerry didn't get.
I know that Deaniacs hate her but with a solid base of minority support she will win the nomination. And a cultural liberal like Giulani flatly will not be the GOP nominee (if he were, the cultural conservatives would stay home and it would be Hillary in a cakewalk). The Deaniacs will grumble but vote for Hillary.
John Kerry was not killed by his flip flops. He was rated the most liberal senator, i.e., more liberal than Hillary (who voted for the war and funding it by the way),and still garnered 251 electoral votes. It was a very close election despite the 3 million vote difference. Kerry was killed by the SBVFT, despite being called "dishonorable and dishonest" by McCain and being condemned indirectly by the White House, which wanted all 527s muzzled.
I think you are naive if you believe that "no one can fool the majority of voters by changing their true colors." Bill Clinton did it twice.
America is not yet ready for a woman President, and for sure America is not ready for a left wing liberal woman like Hillary Clinton to be President. Hillary will do terribly among women voters, worse than any other Democrat before her. The majority of women do not like to see another woman in the most powerful post in history of mankind, the Presidency of the United States, and that is the woman nature. I know a bunch of young liberal women from Massachusetts who despise Hillary Clinton and cannot stand her, and they are ready to vote for a Republican like Guliani if both a the respective candidates of their party.
You can posit all the personal opinions you want about America not being ready for a woman President, but the polls show otherwise. Any anecdotal stuff about young liberal women in Mass being against Hillary is just that, anecdotal. Hillary will win Mass regardless along with NY, California, Illinois, Michigan, and all the other states won by Kerry and/or Gore. It will again boil down to a few key states and who the GOP nominee is.
What we are going to see from some conservative corners, some on FR like yourself, is the overrating of Hillary Clinton beyond belief, and she they will keep telling us that she is the most formidable Democrat candidate to ever run for President...
I have never said that Hillary can't be beat or that she is the most formidable Dem to run for President. That is nonsense. Hillary is a strong candidate for all of the reasons I have enumerated. She will not be running against an incumbent President, have lots of money, a top flight political organization, name recognition, and the ability to turnout minority and women voters. Faced with the possibility of permanent minority status, the Dems will do everything they ca to win this one. If the GOP nominates a Bob Dole like candidate, it will be no contest.
We have seen all the gloom and doom scenarios in 2004 coming from some conservatives regarding Kerry and the Democrats crushing us, and we all know what happened.
What happened with Kerry? Kerry was such a poor candidate with so much baggage, he should have been beaten soundly by an incumbent wartime President. Instead, Kerry received the second highest number of votes in history and narrowly missed being elected President with 251 electoral votes. He won every state Gore did except Iowa and New Mexico and won NH, which Gore lost. I repeat, I was not one of those who thought Kerry would win. I was very surprised that he made it that close.
In terms of electoral politics, America is a divided country. Both parties start out with a solid bloc of votes and fight for several key states.
In 2008 if Hillary run for President, we will see the "clowning" of American politics. Some people on this thread already made comments about her screeching voice and her laughable attempt to move the crowds. Write on a piece of paper: "Hillary Clinton is a joke".
What I am afraid of is that the joke may be on us. The first mistake would be to underestimate her.
She is to the left of most.
What is Hillary Clinton stand on taxes?
She is to the left of most.
What is Hillary Clinton stand on judges?
She is to the left of most.
What is Hillary Clinton stand on Health care?
We all remember what happened to Hillary Clinton helathcare plan during her husband administration. Vote 99:0 against it in the US Senate.
Regarding the women vote for Hillary, even this poll tell us that more women will vote against her than for her.
The extreme overrating of Hillary Clinton has already started, unfortunately some conservatives are contributing to this, under the pretext of " do not underestimate her".
As the baby boom ages, expect national health care to become more and more of a winning issue for Democrats.
And on abortion, guns, and homosexuals she is most definitely NOT to the left of most. It was Clinton who signed the DOMA and advised Kerry to support sodomite marriage ban amendments.
No one was further to the left than Kerry and look how close he got. That's the point you are ignoring. You still think the GOP can win 80's style landslides. Those days are over.
It depends on who the audience is. She has already made overtures to the pro-choice movement, emphazing that abortion should be extremely rare. She will, as most politicians do, avoid taking hard stances on controversial issues. She will finesse them. GWB is pro-life but he has said that he is not in favor of overturning Roe vs Wade, but rather, convincing the Pro-choice people to come over to his side.
Hillary will be to the Left of any GOP candidate, the question is public perception of how far left.
What is Hillary Clinton stand on Health care?
I think this will a big issue in 2008. With more than 43 million Americans without health insurance and the looming bankruptcy of Medicare hastened by the perscription drug program, some major public policy decisions will have to be made concerning health care. It could be a plus or minus for Hillary, depending on how she handles it. She could come out with a more moderate proposal and actually trumpet the past failure as prescience. She identified the problem, but not the solution the first time around.
The midterm elections will give us a preview on the mood of the public. I am a political realist and understand what were are dealing with.
Do you have a solution how to beat her? or we are going to just hear from you only doom and gloom from now until November 2008.
Oh yeah...I forgot about that. Although I thought her fainting was due to her exhaustion at working so tirelessly for the American people......
On health care, it won't be the first time in history a politician won by losing. By having the voters say, "You were ahead of your time. You were right and we should have listened."
Frankly, jveritas, I think it will be Hillary's election to lose if she keeps doing what she's doing. There is such a need for a cultural conservative/economic populist now that the American people will be inclined to see what they want to see. Remember that back in 1992 the American people chose to believe what they wanted to believe about Clinton after the "bimbo eruption". If the GOP chooses a cultural liberal like Giuliani or an open borders pro illegal immigration type she can start picking the White House chef.
Back during NAFTA, I felt it would be a net minus for Democrats because like Peel in the Corn Laws, he was screwing his own base. NAFTA was a declaration that the New Democrat did not care about the economic interests or respect the values of blue collar Joe and cared only about latte liberals. After all, couldn't displaced factory workers go to community college and study Visual Basic and HTML ? It was a political blunder because the same Republicans who gave Clinton the "victory" on NAFTA went after his scalp on impeachment. I think Hillary is smart enough to recognize the shifting consensus away from free trade at all costs globalism.
Give it up sammy. Your shilling for hillary on FR is getting more than obvious.
Oh BTW, where is hillary side by side of the minutemen.
So according to you she will be President unless the Republicans nominate who? Can you give the name of three potential nominees? or at give three quality or issues for GOP candidate where he can beat Hillary Clinton? Let us hear your solution since you have been showing all the power of Hillary and all the problems of the GOP.
Given a choice between someone who says the right things and someone who is an outright enemy such as yourself, what do you thing working Americans will choose ?
Well at least now you semi-admit that you are shilling for hillary on FR.
Especially with your above comment that she would say the "right things" to get your vote, while you totally disregard her record, such as pushing through the pardon of the FALN terrorists.
Issues ?
1. Tough on illegal immigration. Tancredo tough.
2. Dump CAFTA. Tariffs on China.
3. Push the sodomite marriage amendment.
Problem is, I don't know if the open borders, globalist corporate GOP will support measures 1 or 2. But a GOP that didn't will surely lose in 2008. Issue #1 is a complete non negotiable. No matter what bilge Dane is spewing given a choice between a politician who at least recognizes a problem that is severely impacting the quality of life in the Southwest US and a corporate cheap labor globalist who spouts about "compassion for dishwashers", the American people will emphatically choose the former.
Given a choice between someone who says the right things on illegal immigration and someone such as yourself who actively wants to do the wrong things, what do you think the American people will choose ?
O.K. Sam now we know your agenda.
I guess what you must be thinking is that at least 20% of FR will vote for the candidate who at least says they are for rounding up criminal aliens and closing the borders.
I think that for about 90% of us, that is part of the equation, but to ascribe to those of us who share that sentiment that we would vote for Sen. Clinton for that reason alone and not consider other qualities is shallow.
If I do not understand your calculus, please straighten me out.
My agenda is warning the GOP to stop being foolishly complacent.
A cultural conservative/economic populist could sweep to power easily in 2008 and you are naive if you think you can beat Hillary with 1990's rhetoric. It didn't work in 1992 and it didn't work in 1996. Why should 2008 be any different ? What ammunition will you have then that you didn't have in 1996 ? Is there some new scandal to be dug up ? Or will independent voters just shrug, "there go the Clinton-haters again" ?
All Hillary will need is just one southwest state, which Dane's open borders policy will certainly forfeit for the GOP. Economic populism will guarantee Ohio. And as has been pointed out a smaller percentage of Americans are covered by health insurance today than in 1994 so national health care will become more and more of a winning issue for Democrats especially as the baby boom ages.
Maybe not Tancredo personally. But toughness on illegal immigration will be essential to carrying the southwest.
The side that is toughest on illegal immigration will win the 2008 election.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.