"In any event, Hillary is caught in a dilemma. If she moves to the left, she risks running afoul of the stereotype that a woman cannot be an effective wartime leader. She moves away from a Thatcher-esque image, which she will need to win the 2008 election. But if she leaves the left vacant, someone else will occupy the turf she has vacated and will give her fits in 2008, if not in her renomination run in 2006."
There is no more chance of the part of the political spectrum to the left of Hillary being effectively occupied by someone else than there was of someone occupying the position to the left of Stalin. And for similar reasons.
The "fishyness" in the Democrat party at this time is way past the ordinary level of control by party insiders in America. The Democrat party has become part of the Left, hence, not really democratic anymore. Hillary is running it, in my opinion, via processes that are not visible to the public.
Not to say that she doesn't still have to deal with the voters to some extent in the Democratic primaries. But I beleive the MSM will virtually do her bidding, which makes her failure in the Democratic nomination unlikely. The only thing that could stop her, in my opinion, would be massive revelations of the malfeasance of the Clinton administration. Since the MSM won't do it, the only people who could do it would be the President, Senators, and Congreesmen. But is seems they don't want to.
There is no more chance of the part of the political spectrum to the left of Hillary being effectively occupied by someone else than there was of someone occupying the position to the left of Stalin. And for similar reasons. |
|
This southern strategy would be laughable but for Bush "benevolence." By propping up the clintons once again in their most smarmy elder-statesman / humanitarian pose, the Bushes continue to abet these two dangerous demagogues in their various revisionist, White House and Constitutional assaults.
|
|
Regarding control: "Fishiness" extends beyond the Democrats. Why are the Bushes aiding and abetting the clintons? Who is controlling whom? As for the Democrats and control:
The Stalinist aesthetic appears to be alive and well in America. ... But there's another important national story here: further evidence of the disaster that Bill Clinton has been for the Democratic Party. According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, Democrats held a 1,542 seat lead in the state bodies in 1990. As of last November that lead had shrunk to 288. That's a loss of over 1,200 state legislative seats, nearly all of them under Clinton. Across the US, the Democrats control only 65 more state senate seats than the Republicans. Further, in 1992, the Democrats controlled 17 more state legislatures than the Republicans. After November, the Republicans control one more than the Democrats. Not only is this a loss of 9 legislatures under Clinton, but it is the first time since 1954 that the GOP has controlled more state legislatures than the Democrats (they tied in 1968). Here's what happened to the Democrats under Clinton, based on our latest figures: - GOP seats gained in House since Clinton became president: 48 - GOP seats gained in Senate since Clinton became president: 8 - GOP governorships gained since Clinton became president: 11 - GOP state legislative seats gained since Clinton became president: 1,254 as of 1998 - State legislatures taken over by GOP since Clinton became president: 9 - Democrat officeholders who have become Republicans since Clinton became president: 439 as of 1998 - Republican officeholders who have become Democrats since Clinton became president: 3
|