To: Tumbleweed_Connection
She will run in 04 she has no other option
2 posted on
12/04/2003 3:51:09 PM PST by
al baby
(Ice cream does not have bones)
To: Tumbleweed_Connection
All the candidates are running around like a bunch of chickens with their heads already cut off! Meanwhile, Bush aced the hole match with his trip to Iraq and pissed off Hillary - what a great Thanksgiving huh? For Christmas, I'd like to see Rudy announce he'll run for the senate against Hillary in '06!
To: Tumbleweed_Connection
I disagree with Rush on this. Howard Dean doesn't automatically gain control of the DNC if he becomes the nominee. The DNC membership votes for the chairman, and they're not ready to buck Bill Clinton. Not by a long shot. Dean is only a threat to the Clintons if he has a real shot at being president, and most people would argue that he doesn't.
To: nutmeg
read later
6 posted on
12/04/2003 3:56:56 PM PST by
nutmeg
(Is the DemocRATic party extinct yet?)
To: Tumbleweed_Connection
Let the games begin!
Ever feel like we are back in the coliseum in the days of the Roman Empire?
9 posted on
12/04/2003 4:01:53 PM PST by
ladyinred
(The Left have blood on their hands!)
To: Tumbleweed_Connection
Pretty much the reason I'm voting for Dean in the NH primary.
12 posted on
12/04/2003 4:06:43 PM PST by
RJCogburn
("Is that what they call grit in Fort Smith? We call it something else in Yell County." Mattie Ross)
To: Tumbleweed_Connection
For the clintons, it's always about them!
16 posted on
12/04/2003 4:11:24 PM PST by
Gritty
(Stay away from Ft Marcy Park, Howard!)
To: Tumbleweed_Connection
Let's say Dean runs against Bush and doesn't take one state. Dean's rendered powerless.
Democrats aren't known for being loyal, but this will be a new low. Dean could look to Gore for power and acceptance - and even Gore would reject him.
So what happens? Clinton and McAwful step into the void. They're there to save the day, get the party back on a victory path. The dying party has a head.
Clinton wants Dean to run. We want Dean to run. And Dean wants Dean to run. John Edwards could stop the train wreck, but he's young, inexperienced, and not with the "in" program. Watching democrats is better than going to the circus.
26 posted on
12/04/2003 4:58:38 PM PST by
GOPJ
To: Tumbleweed_Connection
Both those socialists belong in jail--not running a national party. Are the democraps ever going to wake up and realize they are being scammed by this evil twosome??
To: Tumbleweed_Connection
30 posted on
12/04/2003 5:22:51 PM PST by
ChadGore
(Kakkate Koi!)
To: Tumbleweed_Connection
The civil war (gangland war) inside the Dem party is well underway.
"A house divided...."Panetta Warning Reveals Widening Dean-Clinton Rift
NewsMax.com ^ | 11/30/2003 | Carl Limbacher and NewsMax.com Staff
Posted on 11/30/2003 9:22:53 PM PST by NewLand
Sunday, Nov. 30, 2003 10:19 p.m. EST Panetta Warning Reveals Widening Dean-Clinton Rift
Yet another Clinton insider is openly criticizing his party's presidential front-runner, Howard Dean, warning Democrats that the ex-Vermont governor is far too liberal to defeat President Bush in next year's election.
"There clearly are concerns about Dean's ability to appeal to the entire country, particularly on national security issues," former White House Chief of Staff Leon Panetta told the Washington Times on Friday.
"How can you compete with President Bush on the national security front? There is some concern about whether Dean can rise to the occasion on this issue," Panetta told the paper.
In his warning about Gov. Dean, Panetta hinted that he was carrying a message authored by his former boss, ex-President Bill Clinton. The former White House chief of staff acknowledged that he speaks regularly with the ex-president, who is said to be concerned about Dean's candidacy.
Panetta's comments follow closely on the heels of an attack on Dean by top Hillary Clinton strategist Harold Ickes, who complained to Time magazine two weeks ago that the Vermont governor was "quick of lip, and quick of temper and stubborn."
Ickes also criticized Dean for repeatedly telling audiences that he wants to win support from Southerners who drive pick-up trucks sporting Confederate flags, grousing, "In another time, the Confederate-flag story would have taken him down the drain."
The deepening opposition within the Clinton camp to the candidate least likely to beat Bush has confounded those who say the former first couple actually want Democrats to lose in 2004 in order to give Mrs. Clinton a better chance to win the White House herself by running for an open seat in 2008.
Some say the Clintons' anti-Dean maneuvering shows one of two things:
Either they actually want to see Democrats win in 2004 [a development that would shut down Mrs. Clinton's presidential ambitions till 2012]. Or Bill and Hillary are stacking the deck for a presidential draft sometime before next July's Democratic convention.
33 posted on
12/04/2003 5:33:59 PM PST by
Davea
To: Tumbleweed_Connection
bump !
41 posted on
12/04/2003 6:24:28 PM PST by
Ben Bolt
( " The Spenders " ..)
To: Tumbleweed_Connection
My 2 cents - this panetta talk is just posturing by the clinton camp. No one believes dean can win against Bush, so they're just putting a little distance between them & him for '08. Dean crashes, hill & bill still in control of da dems. Place your bets folks, place your bets right here.
42 posted on
12/04/2003 6:33:02 PM PST by
searchandrecovery
(America - Welcome to Sodom & Gomorrah West)
To: Tumbleweed_Connection
The Clinton's have no choice if they want to retain control of the DNC but to have Hillery run 2004. If Dean is successful in taking control of the DNC from them, 2008 might be unwindable with a splintered Democratic party.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson