Skip to comments.
Dick Morris - Only Condi can beat Hilary
Posted on 11/08/2004 6:46:18 PM PST by politicsfan
Dick Morris is one of the most worthless analysts I have ever seen or heard of. On Hannity and Colmes today he said that the only person he thinks has a chance to be nominated and beat Hiliary is Condi Rice. He said Jeb Bush would get destroyed by Hiliary. According to him Jeb would even lose in his home state of Florida. Dick Morris is a joke.
TOPICS:
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-62 next last
To: politicalwit
He's probably 100% correct.
Condi beating Hiliary? She is probably the one person who can't. 95% of the republican party is white and I think some of those people aren't ready to elect a black president. In the South 75%+ of the whites vote for republicans. This will go down. She is pro-choice. She won't have a base.
Some in this forum some are too blinded by hatred to see reality. It may not be pretty, but facts are facts. Face it, the republican party has no one with name recognization to carry 2008
Like John Kerry had name recognition. Look how close he came. Like Bill Clinton had name recognition. You don't need name recognition after the campaign, convention and debates. I don't think people will want the Clintons back in the White House. The Republican candidate might get more anti-opponent than pro-candidate vote like Kerry did.
To: politicsfan
please. Mr. Morris, go back to sleep.
42
posted on
11/08/2004 7:11:21 PM PST
by
GeronL
(Congratulations Bush on your re-election VICTORY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)
To: An American In Dairyland
I think that many women don't like Hillary at all and won't vote for her. We already know that almost no men will vote for her, so unless we run Tom McClintock against her, she can't get to much more than 43% of the vote.
Now if it was a man, I fear a good looking guy would get lots of women voting for him despite the content, Bill proved that.
43
posted on
11/08/2004 7:14:33 PM PST
by
A CA Guy
(God Bless America, God bless and keep safe our fighting men and women.)
Comment #44 Removed by Moderator
To: Baynative
you make a point by saying that it is how it might be seen by the MSM.. there are those of us, however, who like a strong leader.
Whom else in the current Bush admin do you see doing decent? The only one which comes to my mind is Roscio (did i spell that right?).
To: politicsfan
Dick needs to get on some medication. I think if Hillary ran, voters would be coming out of the woodwork just to vote against her.
46
posted on
11/08/2004 7:27:59 PM PST
by
sweetliberty
(Proud member of the Pajama Posse!)
To: RustysGirl
And yet India had a female leader. Margaret Thatcher was one of the greatest PM's Britain has ever seen, second only to Winston Churchhill. If these countries can have female leaders, why not the US?
47
posted on
11/08/2004 8:32:05 PM PST
by
camboianchristmas
(when two or more or gathered in His name...great things happen)
To: politicsfan
LOL Yeah, right Morris. Condi doesn't stand a chance of being elected. Republicans had better run Rudi if they want to keep Hillary out of office.
To: camboianchristmas
The major difference about the countries you mentioned, (and also Canada had a female PM briefly) is that they all run on the British parliamentary system of government. The leader of the party with the majority gets to rule, whether they are male or female. If those countries were able to vote directly for the leader, then the chances of initially electing a Margaret Thatcher or Indira Gandhi would have been greatly reduced. That's just a political fact.
Hilary Clinton (unfortunately) does have a chance in 2008 but not if the WOT continues. The chances of electing a woman President in a time of war is even less than in normal times.
49
posted on
11/08/2004 10:28:14 PM PST
by
plushaye
(President Bush - W2!! Four more years now! Thanks Swifties & POWs for Truth. Thank you GOD!!)
To: politicsfan
I'd match Rudy Giuliani or Colin Powell against her and I haven't even started naming names outside of NY.
50
posted on
11/08/2004 10:41:23 PM PST
by
ohCompGk
To: nopardons
With my three working brain cells, I judge you to be wrong about Jeb - at sometime in the future.
51
posted on
11/09/2004 5:49:50 AM PST
by
RAY
(They that do right are all heroes!)
To: politicsfan
Morris is partially right. Condi versus Hillary would expose Hillary as the fraud, pseudo-intellectual she really is. Condi would mop the floor with Hillary, and there's nothing the MSM could say about it. I would pay money to see these two debate.
52
posted on
11/09/2004 5:51:42 AM PST
by
rintense
To: BoBToMatoE
What are you smoking? I like condi because she is tougher than most the men up there (sad fact). \
AMEN! Anyone who thinks Condi would be a 'token' doesn't know jack about Condi AT ALL.
53
posted on
11/09/2004 5:54:33 AM PST
by
rintense
To: politicsfan
Jeb is so popular there would be NO chance at all for any other dem candidate in florida, even slick willie. But Jeb j(who by the way is not named Jeb - those are his initials and hence his nickname) has said he doesn't want to. We need him in Florida anyway. He's doing a great job there I hear.
This time Dick is full of it. George Allen is the best choice for us in 2008. He has a W style likability factor and he is solidly conservative.
54
posted on
11/09/2004 5:56:02 AM PST
by
UsnDadof8
(Proudly defending the Dems right to stupidity since 1987)
To: Baynative
But because she's never been elected to a political office, putting her in a Presidential run would be seen by many most as exploitation. Neither did Ross Perot, and folks voted for him. Instead of finding reasons why folks CAN'T or SHOULDN'T run, why not find reasons why they should? Condi has an inexplicable combination of intelligence, grace, and common sense that so few politicians have. She reminds me very much of Dubya.
55
posted on
11/09/2004 5:57:26 AM PST
by
rintense
To: demlosers
I think Dick realizes that we haven't seen the press "in the tank" for a candidate, until we see them when Hillary! runs. Thank GOD for the "new media".
56
posted on
11/09/2004 5:57:37 AM PST
by
MamaLucci
(Libs, want answers on 911? Ask Clinton why he met with Monica more than with his CIA director.)
To: All
One point he brought out though was chilling to me. All this time she has been in the Senate, Hillary has been voting centrist. She has been in favor of all the defense and weapons bills, and the defense of marriage. For four years she has been painting herself as a moderate Democrat. Think about it. There is no way a Republican can attack her Senate record in a campaign now.
57
posted on
11/09/2004 6:02:53 AM PST
by
UsnDadof8
(Proudly defending the Dems right to stupidity since 1987)
Comment #58 Removed by Moderator
To: camboianchristmas
Good question. I don't know why, myself. Most European and Scandinavian countries have many, many more women in national (elective) offices. Personally, I think it's embarrassing that we have so few women Senators and Congressmen(!) at the start of the 21st century. One guess is how our national campaigns are conducted: It takes an incredible amount of money, and a female candidate for president, or a nonwhite candidate for president, is an unknown entity. For the big political movers and shakers, it's probably not worth the risk.
To: RAY
Then you just haven't been paying attention.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-62 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson