Posted on 12/24/2003 5:15:05 AM PST by pcx99
| Hillary for President?
Like all disasters, it started with something small and simple. Doctor Dean throws his hat into the presidential ring and says he didn't think the war in Iraq was a very good idea. The disenfranchised, activist liberals seized on this position, and gave Dean a popular boost that set him apart from his distressingly boring opponents. Attempting to recover, the other candidates also hopped on the anti-war bandwagon even when many had actually voted to authorize President Bush to prosecute the war. Since there is no "pro-war" Democratic candidate, this effectively makes the "anti-war" issue a party platform and the looming election a referendum on the war itself.
Now the problem with this is that two thirds of Americans and most democrats supported going to war back when we were still thinking it over and France was telling us it was a really bad idea; Two thirds of Americans supported the war during the week it actually took us to spectacularly and decisively wage and win the war while France was telling us how rude we were being; And two thirds of Americans still support the war in its aftermath while France explains how they are entitled to our Iraqi reconstruction contracts. And just when it looks like that support might slip a tenth of a percentage point we find Saddam hiding in a hole, or Libya decides it better start making nice with us before it gets shock and awed too.
The Democrat's problems don't just stop with their bizarre desire to out-France, France. This year has seen the party become so desperate that it's willing to sacrifice our national security by plotting to politicize a critical intelligence committee that directly deals with highly classified information in our war on Terror -- an act that even leading Democrat Zell Miller conceded was treason or its first cousin.
Then there was the Democrat's total grip on power in California. The democrats controlled the legislature, the judiciary, and the governorship. Given absolute power the democrats managed to drive the state into financial ruin, failed to keep the lights on, and decided the law was no excuse to keep illegal aliens from having driver's licenses. The Democrats managed to screw things up so badly that Californians -- in a state so liberal the democrats have to fight tooth and nail against the Green Party -- recalled their governor and put a Republican into office.
All of this will be in the back of voter's minds as they head to the polls next November but the ads that will be playing will go something like "Dean and the Democrats don't think the world is safer without Saddam, they think we should have listened to France and let the UN decide if we can defend ourselves against terrorists. This November, give President Bush the support he needs to finish the war on terror elect (name of Republican candidate for senate), a man who will stand for America, not France and the UN!"
And with the way things are shaping up for the Democrats, come election day, they may lose even the last handful of seats they need in the Senate to keep a filibuster going and if that happens the US will become a single party state with President Bush commanding a rubber stamp congress. This sort of one-party Government is usually reserved for the likes of China and the Soviets, not the leader of the free world.
A Democratic disaster of the magnitude that seems to be shaping up may very well spell the demise of the party itself, leaving the fringe green and libertarian parties to squabble over the remains. One can imagine those who seek to legalize pot heading over to the libertarian party while those who wish to protect the pot plants head over to the greens, and you have to wonder how the Party survived as long as it did!
Things are so bad for the Democrats that their only chance of salvation may be if Senator Clinton decides to run for President in 2004 instead of 2008. While this may seem odd since Senator Clinton has very little chance of defeating President Bush, she alone seems to have the unique ability to keep from dragging the entire party crashing down around her in that defeat. Senator Clinton voted in favor of the Iraq war and has never backtracked on that vote and has even done the photo-op tour with the troops to show at least token support for the ongoing war on terror. While not an cheerleader of the war, it would be tough for the Republicans to cast her as anti-war or soft-on-war in a battle of 30 second sound-bites. But most importantly, since the Democratic party would be fielding a pro-war candidate the election would cease to become a referendum on the war itself.
In a field that is all disastrously anti-war candidates Senator Clinton would offer a chance for the Democratic Party to decide liberal doesn't have to mean anti-war when there are people shooting at you, and in so doing move the party back to its center. Moreover, Senator Clinton has the base and support to handily best any of the existing candidates and in doing so move the party away from positions that would make it too fringe for the general voting public, redeeming it as a viable force in American politics and taking the pressure off the Democrat's crucial Senators most of whom voted for the war in the first place.
Of course an early presidential bid that's certain to fail would jeopardize Senator Clinton's presumed presidential run in 2008 after she has become more politically seasoned and would not be facing a popular, incumbent, war-time President so Senator Clinton, in all likelihood, will not run in 2004. The Democrats will lose the presidential race in 2004 and quite probably enough senate seats to let the Republicans govern by writ for the next four years. When Senator Clinton finally does run in 2008 she may find all that's left of her party is the loony left who hate Bush, hate business, hate you and me for driving to and from said business, think cow flatulence is a threat to the environment, think France had it right all along, and never met a brutal, repressive dictator they didn't like.
Given how far Dean has pulled the Democratic Party away from the center, maybe that is really all that's left of the Party now anyway. |
Only if we turn out in droves and vote! (Remember '98 when we let that Klintoon character off the hook by NOT showing up at the voting booths.)
There is no question in my mind that she will be the candidate on November 2, 2004.
Hillary for s**t head of the 20th & 21st. centuries.
That would be Libertarians. Heck keeping marijuana illegal is ahead by a 2 to 1 margin in the polls, and this is with the largest segment of the population being the baby boomers who reveled in the drug culture.
Also it should be pointed out that the Daddy Warbucks of the pro-drug movement is George Soros. The one worlder socialist who is giving money to leftist whacko groups such as MoveOn to run anti-Bush commercials.
Remember by then he will be loaded with cash and endorsements.TV advertising will have been pre-booked,signs and pamphlets printed.
Logistically she would be doomed unless Dr. Dean had a "accident".
I'm with you on that 100%. Her stance on the war is strictly political. This week she called in to a radio talk show (thread somewhere here on FR) to dispute the talk about how the Clintons treated the White House military staff as servants. Said it absolutely isn't true. (I think that's just another little part of her sneaky effort to show how "supportive" she is of our military.) She'd go "U.N." once elected, though, and change our military march style to the goose step and arrange an important U.N. position for her gasp-inspiring hubby Bill.
There is no question in my mind that she will be the candidate on November 2, 2004.
There are questions in my mind about that, but I do think it's likely. Just as she "wasn't running for Senator" in New York, she can continue to say she's "not running" for president. Like an evil Jack-in-the-box, winding, winding, winding....SURPRISE! It's Hillary for President!
Of course, clinton is a lying maggot, so one can't believe a word he says. However, he is surely in the loop on Hitlery's thinking. He wants to get back in the White House too.
She's running. She's just doing it differently than the Nine Midgets.
She looks to get the Nomination by acclamation, not actually begging for votes in the Primaries. Otherwise, she would have to expose herself to media and the public perception for a period of many months. She can't do that. Now, with the super-duper new Campaign Laws, she has enhanced protected from criticism and scrutiny because her nomination will come barely more than 60 days out from the Election. She can skate along and let the Media cover her ample butt for that long - as they did in NY when she was running for the Senate. She never got a tough question. All she got was adulation from the sychophantic Media. Don't expect her to agree to more than one "debate" with President Bush.
Don't let the fact she's not out debating with the other candidates fool you. Instead, she is wisely positioning herself for the draft, including getting all her former organisation hired by Clark. They will be up to speed and ready to go when she accepts the Democrat Coronation next August.
She will hit the ground running and the adulation and relief coming from the Media will be a deafening roar!
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.