WITCH.
-Dan
| This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies. |
|
Locked on 11/03/2003 6:44:30 AM PST by Admin Moderator, reason:
Duplicate:http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1013561/posts |
Posted on 11/03/2003 6:14:54 AM PST by Tumbleweed_Connection
I'm going to go way out on a limb today and predict with nearly 100 percent certainty that Hillary Clinton will seek and win the Democratic Party nomination for the presidency in 2004. I know others have speculated about this. I'm not speculating. I'm forecasting. I'm prophesying. If I were a betting man, I would be placing the farm on it. Why am I so sure? The latest polls bear out what others before them show – the nomination is hers for the asking. The most recent survey, conducted by Quinnipiac University, shows Clinton getting 43 percent of the vote if she enters the race against the remaining nine Democratic dwarfs. She polls higher than Wesley Clark, Joe Lieberman, Richard Gephardt, John Kerry and Howard Dean combined. In other words, this would not be a contest if Hillary entered the picture. That alone must be a very tempting prospect for someone as ambitious as Hillary Rodham. How many politicians would not seize an opportunity like that? I don't think she can resist – which explains the way she's talking recently. She's getting vitriolic against President Bush. She's going postal. She's going ballistic. She's even more shrill than usual. Last week, just before her high holy day of Halloween, she said "the pillars of democracy are shaking" due to Bush's need to avoid "political embarrassment" over the Sept. 11 terror attacks and the Iraq war. It was her sharpest attack yet on the president's handling of foreign policy. Clinton suggested Bush was trying to hide troop casualty figures and was using national security as a cover for failures. She said the White House's refusal to hand over documents to the commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks "unnecessarily raises suspicions that it has something to hide." "We must always be vigilant against letting our desire to keep information confidential be used as a pretext for classifying information that is more about political embarrassment," she added for good measure. I guess she wants an open administration like the one her husband ran. Clinton said Bush's foreign policy has been marked by an "aggressive unilateralism." "We now go to war as a first resort against perceived threats, not as a necessary final resort," she said. But there's one clincher for me. There's one fact that persuades me more than any other that she is running. And that is her consistent denials. Hillary doesn't know the truth. It is as much a stranger to the junior senator from New York as sunlight is to a vampire. And, from a practical standpoint, she's still got time. She will need to declare her candidacy soon – this month, in fact – to meet filing deadlines in November and December for the critical early primary elections. Analysts believe the nominee will be selected, for all intents and purposes, by March 2 – an election night Super Tuesday, with primaries in California, New York, Texas, Ohio and eight smaller states. But realistically, the race will be over the day Hillary enters the race – and that is coming any day. Oh, and by the way, Hillary has just managed to get herself scheduled as the featured speaker this month at a major Democratic Party event in Iowa – the location of the first caucuses where delegates are chosen. So don't be surprised. Remember where you heard it. Hilary is running. She will be the nominee of her party for president in 2004. The rest of the also-rans are merely jockeying for a vice presidential nomination.
She will run as a third party canidate.
BOOKMARK THIS THREAD BECAUSE YOU HEARD IT HERE FIRST!
Furthermore, unless bush can get the jobs and factories back by next summer, and unless he can balance the federal budget and balance of trade by next summer, who ever is nominated by the democrats will win. Time is running out for bush to spend some time on the United States economy and american job creation instead of spending so much of his time and efforts trying to bring peace to the middle east.
To reach the conclusion that Farrar does, you only have to count on two, hard-wired defects in the "character" of Hillary! He is right that she has the same characteristic as her husband -- lying comes naturally to her. But there is a second characteristic he doesn't mention -- her towering capacity for self-deception.
All people with the dictatorial mindset, and Hillary! is certainly one of those, surround themselves with toadies who assure them that everything they say and do is brilliant, just and successful. Absent such kowtowing, subordinates do not last long in the presence of the Dear Leader (excuse me, I meant to say, the Junior Senator from New York).
The net effect of this collective self-delusion is that Hillary! may disbelieve the hard evidence from many polls that she cannot win the election against President Bush. If she knows she can have the nomination, and believes she can win, then her ego will drive her into the race.
I point out one difference between Hillary! and Lady MacBeth. Lady MacBeth had a conscience, after the fact. With the blood on her hands, Lady MacBeth did say, "Out, out, damned spot." No evidence has ever been presented that Hillary! has any semblance of a conscience, at any time.
Congressman Billybob
What? Conservatives are supposed to be swayed into voting for the Republican party because candidate decisions are being made by another party? What happened to voting for who holds your beliefs and supports the Constitution? Or do we not do that anymore in this 'enlightened' age?
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.