Morris: How Hillary Becomes President in '08

NewsMax.com ^ | Tuesday, Dec. 28, 2004 7:14 a.m. EST | Editor: Newsmax

[DooDahhhh]

Yes, I do believe that he worked for BillyBob. A year ago January we went on a Celebrity cruise to South America and Morris was one of the speakers. He gives an opinion and then makes obscure statements to the contrary in case he is wrong. That was one hell of a long cruise. It took 9 hours to fly back from Chile to Dallas and then another 2.5 to Washington DC. Maybe he is copying Hillary, cover his but. Yes, I do figure she will be born again here shortly. But it is funny, the liberals still don't get it!

[GeekDejure]

Thang Que !!!

[Sam the Sham]

Hillary is good with people in a way Kerry never was.

And she will be in a strong enough power position that she can smack down Moore at will.

[GeekDejure]

Even a stopped clock is right twice a day. Rice or Hillary!. Pick One. I pick Rice...
=====
Can you even imagine the total and complete shame that would engulf Hitlery if she'd loose to a smart, black woman?

Odds are that Hitlery might even commit sewer side !!! ;-))

[jammer]

I'd like to think you're correct, but I dunno'. Every election since 1984 (except Bob Duh in '96) has been the "most important election in our history". 2008 will probably be the same.

[only1percent]

Morris makes a string of unsupported (and, in my view, unsupportable) claims regarding Hillary's outperforming Kerry.

It is frankly bizarre to assert that Hillary would hugely outperform Kerry among single women. Voting single women, particularly those who voted for Bush, aren't stupid. The idea that 40% of those who voted for Bush would somehow come over to Hillary solely because she's a woman is absurd.

Morris's claim that Hillary would outperform Kerry among Latinos makes no sense that I can see. Social issues are what swing Latinos to the GOP, and Hillary is farther to the left than Kerry on them. The number of feminist-identity voters among the 2004 Latino Bush voters has got to be very, very, very small.

But even beyond this, the lessons of 2004 were quite clear -- Democrats ought not to nominate an urban northeasterner, an indisputable social liberal, or an ardent opponent of the RKBA. Clinton is all three, and her (somewhat) hawkish foreign policy position would not save her unless the Republicans were so nuts as to run someone who'd actually be to her left on that issue.

Hillary's campaign would simply be a repat of Kerry's -- a selfish effort by a politician who doesn't care about her/his relative unelectability, and who'd gladly take a heightened risk of Republicans keeping the White House for a smaller chance of becoming President themselves.

The only question is whether the Democratic primary electorate will fall for it again, and whether the country might be in such disastrous straits that Hillary could win even despite her many disadvantages.

[only1percent]

You don't have to be a math wizard to recognize that there is very little chance of further net tax cuts in the near future.

We are up against a $300-350 billion structural deficit and are facing a combined retirement deficit (Social Security, Medicare, and PBGC) in the neighborhood of $2 trillion.

The best we can realistically hope for is that some current tax cuts will be made permanent, and that tax levies might be reallocated in favor of efficiency or equity, with no reduction in the total collected.

What we're more likely to look at is tax increases. Nobody in Washington is talking about increasing rates, but they're sure talking (on both sides of the aisle) about reducing deductions and exemptions. (Eliminating the deductibility of state and local taxes, and reducing or eliminating the exemption of earned income in excess of $90,000 from Social Security taxes.)

[seppel]

Clintons are like Kennedys. They are a historic fact.

[pepsi_junkie]

Executive experience is a plus, but let's not overstate it. Senator and Governor are both viable launching pads, though Governor has been more promonent in the last 25 years. Here is the 20th century breakdown.

William McKinley : Governor of Ohio
Theodore Roosevelt: Governor of New York
William Taft : Ummm...Bureaucrat and Judge
Woodrow Wilson : Governor of New Jersey
Warren Harding : Senator from Ohio
Calvin Coolidge : Governor of Massachusetts
Herbert Hoover : Ummm...Another Bureaucrat
Franklin Roosevelt : Governor of NY
Harry Truman : Senator From Missouri
Dwight Eisenhower : General, US Army
John Kennedy : Senator from Massachusetts
Lyndon Johnson : Senator from Texas
Richard Nixon : Senator from California
Gerald Ford : Congressman but not elected so doesnt really count
Jimmy Carter : Governor of Georgia
Ronald Reagan : Governor of California
George H W Bush : Congressman from Texas
Bill Clinton : Governor of Arkansas
George W Bush : Governor of Texas

So by my count, in the 20th century there have been 9 Governors, 5 Senators, 1 General, 1 Congressman (excluding Ford) and a couple of political hacks. Looks like Senators can make, though to be fair three of the five Senators made it by being VP when the president died (Truman, TR, and LBJ) and then secured election with executive experience by virtue of being President by death.

The Senators came mostly in one period, the 1960s. In fact, in 1960, 1968, and 1972 both candidates had Senatorial credentials, not Gubernatorial. I wonder if that says something about the era?

[George Smiley]

The objective of every " red " American must be to ad at least one vote to the total of 2004

I did that 16 1/2 years ago when my first child was born.

He'd gargle broken glass before he'd cast his first-ever Presidential vote for THAT b1tch.