Skip to comments.
Andrew Sullivan: Hillary’s military campaign for the presidency
The Sunday Times ^
| May 11, 2003
| Andrew Sullivan
Posted on 05/10/2003 3:55:31 PM PDT by MadIvan
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-60, 61-80, 81-100, 101-114 next last
To: tet68
"The murderess Cuckold" bump. ;^)
To: mystery-ak
For good cause.
62
posted on
05/10/2003 5:11:22 PM PDT
by
MEG33
To: DD938
Understood!
The first paragraph of my post is from the article. I should have placed it within quotes. I was trying to figure out how to italicize it.
What I'm saying is, is that DESPITE 8 years of Krinton, the military was able to fund what they knew needed funding.
63
posted on
05/10/2003 5:15:34 PM PDT
by
D2
To: DD938
That is true. But if Cheney is VP in 04-08, then does not try to run for Prez the GOP will need to come up with a candidate.
If they bring out another Bob Dole then we could be screwed.
64
posted on
05/10/2003 5:15:44 PM PDT
by
El Sordo
To: MadIvan
She has obviously been planning to run for years.
In fact, she was Bush's biggest fan: I'd bet she voted for him.
If Gore had won, she'd have to wait until 2008...unless AF1 had an unlucky accident.
Now she can be "drafted" in 2004--and/or make a 2008 run.
She cares nothing for the Senate, let alone New York. The Senate is a platform, designed to inoculate her from the charge of 'never held high elective office'.
--Boris
65
posted on
05/10/2003 5:16:48 PM PDT
by
boris
(Education is always painful; pain is always educational)
To: Ronin
I have my issue with the administration, but one thing that I have to admit is that they are damn good poker players. They do not overplay their hand and they do not give away what they're holding.
By sticking to Cheney they eliminate distracting and divisive speculation about who would fill the VP spot in 2004. There's the added plus of not giving the opposition time to dig into the backgrounds of potential candidates.
66
posted on
05/10/2003 5:19:37 PM PDT
by
El Sordo
To: annyokie
Got that right...eating chinese fried chicken wings, nearly lost them...next course, pork lo mein noodles... :)
67
posted on
05/10/2003 5:22:08 PM PDT
by
skinkinthegrass
(Just because your paranoid,doesn't mean they aren't out to get you. :)
To: MadIvan
Liebermans lugubrious tedium One entry found for
lugubrious.Main Entry: lu·gu·bri·ous Pronunciation: lu-'gü-brE-&s also -'gyü- Function: adjective Etymology: Latin lugubris, from lugEre to mourn; akin to Greek lygros mournful Date: 1601 1 : MOURNFUL; especially : exaggeratedly or affectedly mournful 2 : DISMAL - lu·gu·bri·ous·ly adverb - lu·gu·bri·ous·ness noun
68
posted on
05/10/2003 5:23:10 PM PDT
by
Porterville
(Screw the grammar, full posting ahead.)
To: MadIvan
No, she is not running for president next year.
Guaranteed she is running in 2004. There are various reasons for that. One, she isn't getting any younger. Once you're over fifty you start thinking of your mortality and Hillary will not live to be 100.
The second reason is that she is laying the foundation via their puppet MacAuliffe to be drafted after all the losers running for the democratic nomination fall flat out on their faces.
Three, she has laways struck me as someone who is impatient. After having tasted life at the White House it is hard to imagine that she will want to remain a senator forever.
69
posted on
05/10/2003 5:25:09 PM PDT
by
Cacique
To: bayareablues
My sentiments exactly! Hillary is NOT to be underestimated and that fact alone scares the hell out of me.
Regarding California - you are right. This has become nothing more than a socialist state. I don't know how much more can be taken from the producers in California before the whole system shuts down. While it won't happen tomorrow, or the day after, but it is well on it's way.
Who is John Galt?
To: Howlin; Miss Marple; mombonn; DallasMike; austinTparty; MHGinTN; RottiBiz; WaterDragon; DB; ...
Pinging Sullivan list.
71
posted on
05/10/2003 5:26:30 PM PDT
by
Pokey78
To: skinkinthegrass
Go 'head and rub it in. I love Chinese and hubby won't eat it (too many tours in Viet Nam). Have some potstickers for me! ; )
72
posted on
05/10/2003 5:27:22 PM PDT
by
annyokie
(provacative yet educational reading alert)
To: Zebra
Who are these centrist Democrats that will reclaim the party? I can't think of a one!
73
posted on
05/10/2003 5:27:30 PM PDT
by
ricpic
To: arthurus
If there are no morre health disasters between now and Dec 08, Cheney will be in good shape to win if he runs then
. The press has made sure that Cheyney's health is front and center; he is knocking on death's door. - IMHO, he wouldn't be electable because of that.
To: DD938
Always keep in mind VOTER FRAUD. It almost did us in last time - they may be more clever next time.
To: ricpic
Think Evan Bayh in 2008 or 2012. He has been following a centrist agenda since his first term as Governor of Indiana. He is attractive, has a beautiful wife and young twins. He is hawkish in a Scoop Jackson kind of way, with strong appeal to the labor part of the party (he paved the way for the unionization of state employees in Indiana, a truly sickening feat). His biggest shortcoming on the national scene is his speaking style, which is not as comfortable as you would expect from the top of the ticket. But then again, locution isn't GW's stong suit, either......
76
posted on
05/10/2003 5:33:10 PM PDT
by
Zebra
To: MadIvan
But the same could have been said about Richard Nixon in the late 1960s, and he still won. So could she. And so far she has been playing her hand very, very smoothly.
Let's don't lose sight of 2004. We MUST win 2004. Today, it seems like GWB is unbeatable. But never forget the Rat tricks.
Don't EVER underestimate Hillary. She is smarter, slicker, and much more devious than Bill could ever hope to be. She is in for 2004, or 2008 - count on it.
To: Cacique
"....she isn't getting any younger."
It's already getting hard to hide her crumpled appearance. By 2008 it will be well nigh impossible. This is the one factor that may force her hand in '04.
78
posted on
05/10/2003 5:36:12 PM PDT
by
ricpic
To: Ronin
It confounds me that so many FReepers see the Vice Presidency as a launching pad for a successful Presidential campaign.
George H.W. Bush was the last sitting Vice President to campaign for -- and win -- a term as President. Name the last such successful candidate before GHWB...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
That would be Martin Van Buren, who was elected in 1836 while serving as Andrew Jackson's second Vice President.
What's more George H.W. Bush and Martin Van Buren are the only people to accomplish this feat under our current system of voting for a ticket of President + Vice President.
79
posted on
05/10/2003 5:44:28 PM PDT
by
okie01
(The Mainstream Media: IGNORANCE ON PARADE.)
To: Zebra; Miss Marple; Republic
I also think Evan Bayh is an attractive candidate for the Dems in 2008 or 2012. He has has been governor (1 or 2 terms?) and is honing his skills in the senate. IIRC, he was approached about running for higher office, but declined because of the young ages of his children. He is almost a legacy candidate, because of his father Birch Bayh, longtime congressman.
I recall Miss Marple not being overly impressed with him. Can you expound on that MissM ?
The only other possible candidate I can think of is Gov. Richardson of New Mexico - who has flatly stated that he is in NM for 4 years.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-60, 61-80, 81-100, 101-114 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson