I sreached for this under "Hillary", "2008" and "Hillary 2008" and didn't find it. If you posted this article with a changed headline, shame on you.
Please read and heed my tagline.
Of course sometimes I wonder why I take the time and hassle to post articles like this when The Hildabeaste herself has said repeatedly that she's not running.
1 posted on
06/20/2003 9:29:13 AM PDT by
upchuck
To: upchuck
Eventually her own party will cut her off at the knees.
To: upchuck
Michael Barone is The Man.
P.S.: What tagline?
3 posted on
06/20/2003 9:33:45 AM PDT by
martin_fierro
(A v v n c v l v s M a x i m v s)
To: upchuck
She cannot wait for 2008.
4 posted on
06/20/2003 9:33:58 AM PDT by
Jim Noble
To: upchuck
I still think Hillary has to try for 2004.
Out of the pack of Dems, one might emerge next year who either defeats GWB or makes a great showing. That would quell Hillary in 2008. She can't take the chance that that might happen.
She might lose her Senate seat in 2006. That would end her power base. She can't take that chance.
Even if she tries in 2004, becomes the party nominee--either by primaries (doubtful) or draft (likely they'll beg her to save the party and the Nation)-- and loses 2004, that puts her at the head of the pack for 2008. (Remember, Al Gore had to "give" 2004 to the pack because he was considered the heir-apparent.)
5 posted on
06/20/2003 9:35:58 AM PDT by
TomGuy
To: upchuck
Stay alert for new manifestations of this "Third Way" Clintonian strategy. It could achieve success in a couple more years.
By then, with Hillary at the helm, I expect that the Democrats will have metamorphed from the majority party to a permanent minority party, with about a third of the seats in both houses and maybe a third of the governorships, and with two chances of recapturing the WH.
8 posted on
06/20/2003 9:57:56 AM PDT by
kcar
(T)
To: upchuck
She is an overwhelming favorite to win re-election in New York in 2006.WHAT?! Wasn't there a very recent poll which pitted Her Heinous against Lazio in a hypothetical rematch of their 2000 race, and Lazio beat her?
if she ran 5% behind him nationally, she would win 43% of the vote
About the same percentage that Bill Clinton got in 1992. Sadly, about 43% of the electorate has been bedrock Clinton supporters. But 43% in a two-candidate race means "landslide" defeat.
I seriously doubt Ms. Rodham will ever be elected President. I think the Dems could nominate her, considering how morally bankrupt the Democrats are, but she is the most divisive person in American politics. She may run, but her candidacy will result in a crashing defeat, and the final end of the Clinton era.
9 posted on
06/20/2003 10:11:47 AM PDT by
My2Cents
("Well....there you go again.")
To: upchuck
If the Demo 9 had any smarts, they'd start bashing Hillary now instead of Dubya. That'd likely win them some votes in 2004. Evidently they're just not as forward-calculating as she.
10 posted on
06/20/2003 10:16:10 AM PDT by
arasina
(Did too! Did not! Did TOO!)
To: upchuck
Hillary is a great candidate for 2008. FOR ME TO POOP ON!
13 posted on
06/20/2003 10:26:49 AM PDT by
SQUID
To: upchuck
the day after Bush wins re-election, the media will proclaim him a lame duck and will start talking about 2008. Hillary is the frontrunner for president in 2008, not the Democratic frontrunner, the frontrunner for the election absent a Republican candidate. Don't underestimate her and the people behind her, she can win, these polls now mean nothing.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson