Andrew Sullivan: Hillary’s military campaign for the presidency

The Sunday Times ^ | May 11, 2003 | Andrew Sullivan

[maxter]

The plan is in place. Dick Cheney will run in 2004 only to step down for health or other reasons in a couple of years. Then the annointed one will move in as VP and then run for the presidency in 08, slam dunk. Question is, who will it be?

[skinkinthegrass]

Can somebody tell me WHY the democrats love her so much? They seem to think she is some kind of Messiah. Is it only because they think she can win? ...I really can't think of anything she's actually done....she never accomplished anything notable in the private sector, media, entertainment or politics, etc...

Its' the Singali Effect...Gobbells' phase come to mind "Tell a lie, offen enough..it becomes the truth"...a typical liberal tactic of ABCNNBCBS disinformation dept...as far as what she's done..she ran Bubbas' Little Rock Mafia since the 80s'.

[Free_at_last_-2001]

Cue the music from Jaws, or Fatal Attraction. might I suggest the Omen!

[veronica]

And she ran a pretty flawless campaign...

No she did NOT. She got a free ride from the fawning press, she was treated as a celebrity rather than a candidate and it's hardly a big deal when a Democrat wins in NY.

Hillary has never been really been scrutinized by the press, her ultra leftwing views and past are hardly ever mentioned, nor are the numerous stories of her shrewishness, her general nastiness to "underlings", nor is her quest for power for power's sake given much weight. These matters are glossed over in the press, whereas if she were a Republican she'd be raked over the coals, a la Katherine Harris, or Linda Tripp.

Why she is a heroine to so many women is beyond me. She's Lady Macbeth and Madame DeFarge wrapped up in one ugly picture of you ask me. I don't see what there is to admire about someone who moves her views all over the map in such an abvious way, in a manner merely designed to gain political advantage. Most pols do that to some degree, but that is all that she is - and it masks a deep allegiance to an ultra leftwing agenda, and who else gets away with it to the degree that she does??

[ontos-on]

The problem in NY as well as all over the map IMHO, is that quite often the GOP does not run anybody against the Dems. Lazio was a nobody who said nothing. This Bill Frist seems to be another zero.

Forget Condi Rice , she will not run. Tell me of one attractive GOP Governor or Senator. It is hard. I am not sure of Jeb Bush. Of course, I hardly know anything about him. However, it would be uncritical to assume that what GW has is transferrable to his brother. Who would run????

[ontos-on]

Oh yeah: NY, CA, FL MA CT IL MI WA OR NM AZ VT IA HA MD NJ RI MN------ How many electoral votes are that??? Maybe even WI & LA. Do you want to throw in MO?

I saw it happen in NY. There will be a lot of disturbed women coming out of the woodwork to vote for what they perceive as their champion. AZ & NM have Dem governors, BTW.

The GOP better come up with someone other than another Bob Dole. I am not impressed with the GOP performance while holding both houses of Congress. Maybe Newt Gingrich would beat her. After the naysaying, remember that the only way to beat these people is with a coherent message, regardless of what the NYT, WP, CBS ABC et alia, say or do. Gingrich is the only Republican I have heard say something in a long time. This was the case even tho he knew "the Administration" would not like it.

[ontos-on]

I have a question....because this Hillary obsession is a riddle to me. Can somebody tell me WHY the democrats love her so much? They seem to think she is some kind of Messiah. Is it only because they think she can win? If that's the case, then isn't that just self deluding argument? I really can't think of anything she's actually done....she never accomplished anything notable in the private sector, media, entertainment or politics, etc... And it's certainly NOT her looks, personality or character! Plus, I think few people would trust her around children and small animals. Any suggestions?

Only one reason. She is a she.

[Cagey]

Who would run????

Rudy.

[ontos-on]

Only one reason. She is a she.

Let me qualify that. She is a woman and, infinitely vicous, and, most importantly Marxist to the core. They love that combination. The real Marxist believes that truth is to be used subversively to attain one's ends. That is Madame Hillary. I knew her type in law school. The entire deceptive and vicously ambitious package is music to their ears.

[ontos-on]

Who would run????

Rudy.

Yeah, you are right. I had forgotten about him. Sure, he would beat her. Good call.

[ImpBill]

"A large swathe of Americans would rather see Jacques Chirac elected American president than Hillary Rodham Clinton."

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm!

Given the two choices which would I choose?

Can I pick door three?

[Cagey]

I think Rudy would be her worse nightmare. But like you, I think there is no way in hell we can take her lightly. After all, her husband (or whatever he is to her) won two terms when I still can't imagine why anyone with the slightest bit of sense would have voted for him in 1996.

[McGavin999]

And the military that prevailed in Iraq so swiftly and decisively was, in many respects, Clinton’s army. Reforms in military life, acquisitions and strategy take years to implement, and much of the weaponry and structure of the current force was bought, deployed and planned for under the previous administration.

The plan was NOT developed under Clinton. Yes, some of the weapons were purchased during his years, but we all know that the ammunition was purchased after he left (we all read about the fact that the military didn't have the ammunition to practice). The army was NOT Clinton's it was Dubya's. Those kids would have marched into hell for him. You could tell the difference between the effort in Iraq and the effort in Kosovo. It's the men who make the military, not the machines.

[DD938]

See post #89