Hillary Clinton will beat George W. Bush in 2004(The Wesley Clark Chill Factor)

the back of my mind ^ | 2 September 2003 | trueblackman

[Trueblackman]

The pasted couple of days I have been doing some overall review of politics before the President and Congress returned to Washington DC and something has come to mind.

Last week a rumor surfaced that Senator Hillary Clinton was thinking about seeking the Democrat Nomination for 2004, remember that Ms. Clinton is suppose to be having a post Labor Day meeting with her advisors and supporters.

Basically if Ms. Clinton jumped into the race the Democrat Nomination would be hers for the taking since the other 9 Democrat Nominees would bullied out of the race.

Granted that most Washington Insiders feel that Ms. Clinton is a force to be reckoned with in a head to head match up with President Bush she would lose the race flat out in Southern and Midwestern States as well as among conservative Democrats in Southern States. Ms. Clinton could win several northern states and the west coast, but she would still lose openly.

It is the conservative Democrats who would spell Doom for Ms. Clinton and liberals inside the Democrat Party are aware of this, so enter General Wesley Clark.

The former 4 star General and NATO Surpreme Commander could be the spoiler of a Bush-Clinton Match up that would throw the race to Ms. Clinton as a third party candidate. You see the good general is very good friends with his fellow Rhodes Scholar Bill Clinton and served Bill Clinton well in the Kosovo Operations of 1998.

The Democrats know they would have peel away at least 2 million votes for Ms. Clinton to win and will seek the enlistment of the former general to run as a independent to do so. Already some in Washington have stated that General Clark is a Washington Outsider and could give great military insight on the War on Terrorism.

Terry McAlliffe is already pounding his chest and boasting that Clark will run as a Democrat but that is sought to entain Republicans in Washington and keep the real behind movement which is being controlled by former President Clinton of the radar screen.

Democrats will seek to turn Clark into a "Republican Ralph Nader" who they still blame for Al Gore's lost of the white house in 2000.

[At _War_With_Liberals]

I had friends into astrology. It is creepy. They are so convinced about their predictions, you really start worrying that they may be right.


I have had a strange feeling that Hillary would not make 2008. Maybe its just wishful thinking.

[At _War_With_Liberals]

Hillary is sporting the Ellen DeGeneres dike look to a tee. That CANNOT be a coincidence...

[Trueblackman]

I would like to see that video myself I have heard rumors for years about it, but never saw the video.

[Trueblackman]

I served under Clark in Kosovo and I know how the Clinton's operate as well. Look at Admiral Chuck Larson who switched from pub to rat to run with KKT here in Maryland. Clark will do it if ordered and the liberals press will promote him.

[Toddsterpatriot]

I despise Hillary Clinton but will vote for her with GLEE if Bush signs the AWB.

Yeah, she won't sign a ban on all weapons.</sarcasm off

[Joe Hadenuf]

That level of discontent does not exist at the current time.

I think that is debatable. A lot of working and non working folks may tend to disagree with you. Many wont vote for a Clinton, but I can clearly hear and see the discontent and outrage towards government on daily basis.....

[DustyMoment]

Interesting analysis, however I believe there are more significant issues for HRC to be concerned with. Despite her pledge to complete her first term in 2006, I don't believe that she can afford to. If she waits until 2008, there is no guarantee that she will be re-elected in '06. Without her Senate seat as a stepping stone, she has no launchpad for the WH and, if NY turns her out in '06, she's a non-starter for the WH, period. Also, should one of the dwarves actually end up winning in '04 (always a possibility in elections - not likely, but a possibility), HRC must wait until 2012 to run. Time is NOT on her side in this one. If she waits any longer, most Americans will consider her too old. As it is, look how much she has aged since she was forced to abandon the WH in '01.

I think the entire Clarke issue is a red herring. Too many people don't know him or care who he is. Having him on a ticket with her will neither help or hinder her run for the WH. HRC has to run in '04 and will wait to be drafted at the convention next summer so she doesn't break her pledge to NY. This is a done deal and was why BJC appoointed McAuliffe as the DNC chairman. Her fall campaign will utilize her standard maneuvers - no questions, no interviews, etc., etc. because of the time constraints. It will be typical HRC.

In the end, she will lose by a huge margin. HRC may have a lot of dimwitted supporters, but I also believe that she brings so much baggage to the table that more people will turn out to vote against her than, necessarily, to vote for W. The co-presidency legacy is revealed more and more on a daily basis and I think the average American is not as dumb as perceived. If HRC waits until '08 or later, hers and Bubba's legacies will kill her chances before she can announce her candidacy. IMO, for HRC, it's now or never (with apologies to Elvis).

[Old Sarge]

FRiend, I would ask one question of your psychic advisors: Did They Predict September 11th?

[Toddsterpatriot]

If Hillary is in the race then she'll get 55-65% of the female vote based on gender identification alone.

Not a chance. Women were fooled by Slick, they're not dumb enough to be fooled by Shrillary.

[VERYProGun]

"It doesn't matter who the Democrats run for President in 2004 IF Bush sings the Assualt Weapons Ban renewal."

I agree with this statement, but not because the gunowners I know would vote for Hilliary, but simply wouldn't vote in droves. Much like Bush the first lost about 6 million votes because of the 89 AW import ban. He signs an AWB renewal, he loses the election. Plain and simple.

VPG

[XJarhead]

Remember we thought the same thing of Bill Clinton in 1992 and got stuck with him for 8 years.

The only thing they have in common is their last name. And barely even that.

We can hate him all we want, but Bill Clinton had tremendous political skills, great political instincts, and charisma. Charisma is the big equalizer in any political campaign, and it was the primary thing that vaulted him into office.

Hillary doesn't have that. She does best when she keeps out of sight and doesn't open her mouth. Her "charisma" is limited to those who are her ideological soul mates. She's pretty much hated by everyone else. She'll look like the shrew she is if she ever gets to the point of debating Bush. She could "win" every debate, and she'd still lose because a majority of people just don't like her.

Hillary doesn't worry me because she is simply too disliked on a gut level by too many average folk.

[A Broken Glass Republican]

Too far out there.

Besides...Hitlery will never be President. Want to see Republican activism? Nominate Hildabeast.

The first woman President will ONLY be a Republican. No two ways about it. I could state my reasons why but I'm busy now. (Basically it has to do with the woman president NEEDING votes from Conservative women and men...Those people will NEVER vote for a liberal woman...And many conservative Lifetime Union DemocRAT women won't vote for a woman for Pres.)

[montag813]

FRiend, I would ask one question of your psychic advisors: Did They Predict September 11th?

No, but he advises certain hedge funds and told them in Summer 2001 to go short the airlines, due to something with Pluto. And I remember he actually mentioned to me in 1998 that Pluto was doing something which made air travel dangerous, and that Flight 800 was just the beginning. There were a remarkable amount of crashes after that. This is why he freaks me out. He tells me now that alignments are similar to the period during which all the Revolutionary War leaders were born, and he predicted an enormous religious war and change in the world in the next 25 years.

[chimera]

Being fooled implies that you've given some thought to some issue to the point of having someone else mislead you. With Hillary and the female vote, my fear is that it won't get that far. Hillary will attract a majority of the female vote simply because she is (to hear it told) a female. That will be enough. There will be no "fooling" needed.

[Toddsterpatriot]

Hillary will attract a majority of the female vote simply because she is (to hear it told) a female.

I have to disagree. Women like being protected and Bush (so far) is doing that. The gender gap, even with Hillary, won't be large enough to save the Dimocrats this time.

[Matchett-PI]

I have always said that Wesley Clark will be the running mate of which ever DemocRAT gets the nomination. They need him for cover since they can't hide their record on national defense.

On 8-28-03, within 10 minutes of the end of his first hour on the radio, Rush Limbaugh made some comments about Wesley Clark. (I have the comments on audio tape).

I'll paraphrase some of what he said:

Rush said that Wesley Clark is pathological, like Clinton, and "has a lot of baggage".

He lied on Meet The Press, he lied again on Hannity and Colmes, and lied again in a letter.

The lie? He said that he was called on 9-11-01 by "people around the White House and told to say publically that there is a connection between 9-11 and Iraq."

The White House said that was a flat-out lie.

Clark wound up admitting it and then switched his story.

He said that the call came from someone in Canada -- a man from a middle-east think tank.

But Matthew Continetti (sp?) of the Weekly Standard contacted a man in Canada by the name of David Rugg who said that there is no such think tank there. (Apparently he is the person who would be in a position to know).

So, I'm sure there's lots more "baggage" that attaches to him, also. It might behoove us FReepers to begin checking him out BIG TIME and head the RATS off at the pass.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the heads up!

[Trueblackman]

I am of the firm believe that the press and a small minority of Americans hate Bush and much like they had to give Clinton a powerboost in 1992, I only expect the same in 2004 with a Wesley Clark or some other unknown Democrat Shell.

[Trueblackman]

Oh I know the guy is a liar, one only needs to remember his wild baseless claim of the Serbian Military Forces killing over 800,000 people in Kosovo and how a low level aide was sent out later to correct him.

[Chad Fairbanks]

YEah. Like we are to believe you'd vote for Bush for any reason anyway.

Enjoy your stay - I don't see it lasting much longer.