Posted on 06/25/2007 10:54:57 AM PDT by COUNTrecount
Despite the breathless media reports about every jot and tittle of the Democratic contest for President, not all that much has changed in the last year. Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY) has consistently been the frontrunner in national surveys, sometimes by narrow spreads and frequently by sizeable margins. So far she has weathered the entry of Senator Barack Obama (D-IL), a far more charismatic and exciting candidate, and she has held off any sizeable gains by the other two major contenders, former Senator John Edwards (D-NC) and Governor Bill Richardson of New Mexico (D-NM).
The main stumbling block for Clinton has been Iowa, where she continues to trail in the trial heats for the first caucus. But no one else is so well positioned to survive an initial defeat. Arguably, her strongest potential opponents, moderates Senator Evan Bayh (D-IN) and former Governor Mark Warner (D-VA), decided against running, and the other formidable possible candidate, former Vice President Al Gore, is almost certainly not going to run. The other announced Democratic candidates show little sign of breaking out of the pack.
So it's smooth sailing for Hillary, right? No one questions her intelligence, abilities, policy aptitude, and experience (hey, this would be her third term!) And thanks to the deep unpopularity of President Bush and the Iraq War, won't any Democrat be favored in 2008? How can the Democrats blow this election, with all their built-in advantages?
(Excerpt) Read more at realclearpolitics.com ...
So it's smooth sailing for Hillary, right? No one questions her intelligence, abilities, policy aptitude, and experience (hey, this would be her third term!)
Hillary is a classic instance of the Peter Principle...minus the peter and the principle(s), of course.
Do NOT be so hasty!
We know she has no principle(s),.....however we do NOT have sufficient intelligence to make further comment.
I was waiting for that, GTR...(grin)...
“No one questions her intelligence...”
Hey Earth to Larry Sabato. More like about 50% of the population does just that.
Now as for arrogance, lack of civility and power-driven greed, there you would have no questions and no argument.
True. He is a rat tool. That said, this article is probably the first of his comments that won’t be reported in the mainstream media. LOL...
Blue dog dems will not vote for The Witch.
LOL!
Larry, don't be a freaking idiot! The only policy initiative Hitlery ever tried to setup, i.e. Health care, was a flaming disaster.
I certainly hope that the leftists read this. He gives them a LOT of reasons NOT to nominate her. While I do believe she will indeed get the nomination, it would be good if the other candidates' backers saw her as coming by it dishonestly.
Thank you for the opportunity, Snarky.
(Grining back across the table at you)
Sabato makes some good points and some bad ones, but an ‘expert’ like him should know this is just stupid:
“Moreover, the yearning among the public for the end of President Bush’s reign is palpable, and it may simply be impossible to stop any Democratic ticket in November 2008. Put aside Democratic antipathy toward Bush; most Independents and many Republicans aren’t listening to Bush anymore, and that’s a big problem for him and his party.”
Bush is not on the 2008 ticket. That would almost be like saying Reagan couldn’t beat Carter in 1980 becuase of public “antipathy” toward Nixon. In fact, if Reagan had beat Ford in that close 1976 GOP convention, we may never have had to put up w/ Carter (or the rise in terrorism that resulted).
Focus on this: “and it may simply be impossible to stop any Democratic ticket”
Anyone who follows politics knows dems have only exceeded 50% of the vote once in the past 40+ years (at least). Carter barely got above 50% because of both 1) Vietnam and 2) Watergate. That’s why the dems are so desperate to get something out of all these AG, Cheney, Rove fishing expeditions.
They know they can’t win an honest election. For Sabato to imply they are now a juggernaut implies he’s a moron.
” Hillary is a classic instance of the Peter Principle...minus the peter and the principle(s), of course.”
LINE OF THE DAY..............
Edwards to Sue Iowa Democratic Party, Clinton Campaign
Presidential candidate and former senator John Edwards (D-N.C.) says he will file a lawsuit against the Cedar County Democrats and the Clinton campaign for what he says “may have been irreparable damage to his presidential prospects.”
The $200 million suit stems from an incident that occurred during Edwards’ campaign swing through Iowa this month. Asked to point to the picture of her favorite presidential candidate, Emma Claire, Edwards’ nine-year old daughter, pointed to a picture of Senator Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.). The whole thing was caught on videotape.
“This is the dirtiest of campaign tricks,” Edwards complained. “It’s the typical Clinton ‘sleaze machine’ at work. It should be clear to the American voters that the Clintons will stop at nothing in their lust for power.”
Edwards contends that the incident was a “set up.” “Somehow, Clinton’s operatives induced my daughter to pick Hillary over her own father,” Edwards said. “I don’t know whether it was drugs, hypnosis, or some sort of telepathic mind-control technique, but it’s just plain wrong to manipulate people into making bad choices.”
Nora Goode, spokesperson for the Clinton campaign in Iowa, belittled Edwards’ complaint as “more whining from a champion of the art of whining. I mean, here’s a guy whose career as a tort lawyer was founded on manipulating juries with elaborate stunts and mind-games. Apparently, he can dish it out, but he can’t take it. Is this the kind of sniveling weasel we want as the nation’s next president?”
read more...
http://www.azconservative.org/Semmens1.htm
If Reagan had won the election of 1976, he would have had to leave office on Jan. 20, 1985. True, the Middle East might not be quite so messed up if Carter hadn’t put the mullahs in power in Iran, but the Soviet Union might still be in existence if Reagan hadn’t been President during the years Gorbachev was trying to reform the USSR.
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.