Posted on 08/02/2004 11:35:25 PM PDT by Elkiejg
I am continually amazed by the number of knowledgeable conservatives who underestimate Sen. Hillary Clinton's popularity. I'm equally surprised that the general public can't see through her obsessive desire to capture the White House -- and therefore her unacknowledged but likely wish to see Sen. John Kerry and Sen. John Edwards lose in November.
First, the news that Republicans and conservatives never want to hear or believe: Sen. Hillary Clinton is the one person among Democrats who this year could have sailed to a virtually guaranteed win against President Bush in the general election. What? This overwhelmingly liberal, conniving and self-serving senator from New York? That's right.
Every InsiderAdvantage survey we have ever conducted has shown support for Hillary that doesn't exist for other Democrats. In hypothetical match-ups against any assortment of potential opponents, she enjoys huge crossover support, mostly from women who describe themselves as Independents or moderate Republicans. And this is no weak trend. It's an undeniable pattern.
This creates great confusion and even disbelief among those of us who believe the former first lady is far too liberal (and less charming) than her husband, former President Bill Clinton. So let's illustrate the Clintons' continued hold over much of the public by posing the following question to America. InsiderAdvantage, with our polling partners The Marketing Workshop, asked it prior to the Democratic National Convention.
Q: Do you believe Bill and Hillary Clinton want John Kerry to win the presidential election against George W. Bush?
Yes 67 percent
No 14 percent
Don't know 19 percent
Why did we ask this question? Because it seems clear to many informed Republicans -- and even to many in-the-know Democrats -- that a Kerry-Edwards victory in November might end, once and for all, Sen. Hillary Clinton's ambitions to be our nation's first woman president.
Four years of a Kerry administration would be followed by his re-election campaign. And that would force Hillary to either profess her continued loyalty to a Democratic president, or to openly challenge an incumbent of her party, much as Gene McCarthy and Bobby Kennedy challenged President Lyndon Johnson in 1968. Either way, she would probably have to stay out of the way until 2012. That's a long wait for someone so ambitious.
Of course, the former first lady has consistently denied presidential aspirations. Both she and the former president have consistently pledged to do everything possible to help elect Kerry in November. But one has to wonder just how much heart they are really putting into a fight that, if successful, would likely frustrate any realistic shot at another Clinton White House.
And while Hillary got the rock star-like reception at the Democratic convention last week, it was clearly former President Bill Clinton who remains the real headline act. Looking back, it's now clear the campaign waged by Al Gore in 2000 probably blew its best chances for winning big by not asking then-President Clinton to work his magic and breathe new life into that effort by hitting the campaign trail on Gore's behalf. And for those who insist on denying reality -- including Gore, at least back then -- let's point out that Bill Clinton still enjoyed very high approval ratings, his impeachment experience notwithstanding. Judging from his near-perfect convention speech last week -- compared to Hillary's stilted, barking performance -- there's little doubt that Democrats need "Hollywood Bill" in 2004 if they are to pull off the win they believe is within their grasp.
Based on our past surveys, it's also clear the Democrats will need Sen. Clinton's help if Kerry is to widen what is now the modest margin by which women support Kerry over Bush. However, the greatest contribution Hillary Clinton could have made to Kerry would have been to serve as his vice-presidential running mate. But Kerry never offered.
It's hard to believe the rather motley-looking, rank-and-file delegates at the Democratic convention were as supportive of Sen. Kerry's move-to-the-middle acceptance speech as they appeared to be on TV. It's just as difficult to believe the Clintons have their hearts and souls in a race that will either elect Kerry or leave John Edwards as the front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2008. But it's obvious the public believes the Clintons are sincere in their support of this year's ticket. Time will tell.
This article is,in part,wrong/disingenuous.There have been many polls taken and Hillary does NOT win against President Bush.
Here's my take on the subject.
Chappa-squaw would lose by a landslide, because the GOP would see nearly 100% turnout to vote.
She has never been seen by the public in anything but a safe, artificial forum.
The GOP knives will be long and sharp for this enemy of America.
She is not personable, and her record of deceit, failure and complicity in Bill's crimes weighs on her candidacy like a certain wide load.
Hillary 2008 campaign slogan after her loss of her Senate seat to Rudy G.
Slogan for 2008... "WE WILL TAKE THINGS FROM YOU"
"Barking performance"??? I guess that's another way of calling her a bitch.
HELLO, There's A WAR going on.
Jeeze.
GREAT POINTS.
This country has had enough Clintonism.
I believe everything is going according to a well-scripted Clinteone plan. Clinton wowed the crowd, lavishing praise on Kerry, and keeping himself in the limelight as a key player (in actuality - THE key player). So why would he be boosting Kerry so enthusiastically? Because it buys him the illusion that he is a team player dedicated to Democratic victory.
Later - and maybe even already - he can brandish his poison FBI files to the key media and 'Rat players to take Kerry down - just like he did with Dean. It's just too easy.
Anybody who believes that Bill and Hillary would allow Kerry to win the election, thereby robbing Bill of his head of the party status, and dashing Hillary's chance for an '08 shot, truly does not understand the Clinton's and everything they've ever stood for. Which is themselves, and themselves only.
However, I part company with the author that Hillary would win - in '04 or '08. She is a HIGHLY polarizing figure - and will galvanize conservative voters to get off their duffs and vote against her in numbers never seen before.
Also, liberal women, being petty, vindictive, selfish and self-centered (have I covered everything?), are not real happy with Hillary waltzing into the Presidency via her marriage to their "dreamboat" Bill "Sinkmeister" Clinton. I've heard this from a number of liberal women, who although in love with the Sleazebag, are not similarly fond of Her Heinous at all.
In fact, in a conversation with liberal New York relatives just this weekend, they were openly speculating that Bill himself might take Hillary down if she runs for an '08 shot, since he couldn't take the implicit threat to his legacy from his own wife. What a pair, eh?
In any case, first things first. The enemy of our enemy is the Clinteone family (I didn't say friend). And we shall let them do their dirty work.
Laughing out Loud at that one - can you imagine? Based on the cadaver-littered trail behind the Clintons, John Kerry couldn't shut his eyes or turn his back the whole four years!
Baloney.
Gore's margin of victory in New York was 5 points greater than Hillary's! Democrats need to find candidates (as if they could!) that *EXCEED* Gore's votes, not candidates who generate significantly fewer votes.
Hillary will be a formidable foe in 2008. The GOP will not have the advantage of incumbency and there is, at this point, no annointed successor to GWB. Hillary will spend the next four years raising money, building her base, and adding to her resume. Hopefully, her strong negatives and those of her husband will make the difference, but right now, she has the advantage going into 2008, sorry to say.
Repubs should be using this one, now - re Kerry and his Queen-to-be. . .and always as a preface before the name 'Hillary'.
Either way. . .it honestly works.
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.