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.
Well, that's what politics has become, hasn't it...a popularity contest.
I mean, did Hitlery get elected because of her wonderful education reforms in Arkansas...you know, taking Arkansas from 49th in the country to 49th in the country?
Which is why she will not replace Kerry until after the debates are over.
She will have a three week "Listening to America" campaign from NBC studios in New York, with preselected "victims" begging her for help with their problems, moderated in turn by Matt, Katie, Baba Wawa and Oprah.
BS. The Clintons have no intention of seeing John F*ckin' win. They've switched their phaser settings from "stun" to "kill." At the right time, they will make sure the Democratic front-runner sinks of his own weight and you won't find their fingerprints at the scene of the crime. Any one who thinks Hillary will give up her ambition is dreaming.
NO WAY the Senate would ever confirm Hillary for Chief Justice.
Since the electorate has short memory, their negatives will be past history come 2008 (out of sight, out of mind)
Well it's true that Shrillary would most likely get more females out voting, but the flip side of that is she'd get a lot more males out to vote against her. She's not real popular with average males from either maor party.
I think he'd have to watch himself for the first couple of months, but would then be safe until 2 years, one day.
BINGO! Her elected career has been a cake-walk so far. I don't think that she's quick enough on her own two feet to do well in the political dogfight that would lead to the presidency.
The problem is this:
She won't be RUNNING against Bush, but, as of this point in time, an unknown in 2008!!
The Pub's got 4 years (or less) to get someone ready.
Condi and Alan would insure the black, smart, Repub and conservative vote.
Do we need any others to join in??
However, if John Kerry obviously thinks he can run for President while not giving any specifics on his plan(s), then don't doubt that Hillary could do the same, and probably more successfully.
I'd feel and sleep much better if she suffered a massive stroke or something like that. Let Bubba care for her then like Nancy cared for President Reagan...with the same love and devotion of course < /sarcasm >
We need Mel Gibson to buy the movie rights to "American Evita".
Then he should make a movie based on the book and place a notice on the movie that everything in it is documented.
Anybody with half a brain who sees that movie will never vote for Hillary - even in New York.
The woman is a foaming at the mouht radical leftist, and has a history of anti-Semitic behavior.
Hillary doesn't want to run in a truly competitive election. She wouldn't run against an incumbent (GWB) because she knows that the incumbent has many advantages. If Kerry should win, she won't challenge in 2008 for the same reasons.
Hillary wants a coronation. She wants it handed to her.
...and one other thing...who says that if Kerry (which he won't be) is elected that he would be re-elected? Where are the facts to support that?
As much as I detest the stench of the Clinton's I am very afraid we have not seen the last of either of these two. I cannot understand the spell these charlatans have over the so called Democrats in this country but it is very real.
President for her, Supreme Court, UN Secretary General are all very sickening prospects I am afraid. Just imagine.
Look at the following Hitler had and remember, Gore was very nearly elected.
And I don't know one man who would vote for that c--t, except the staunchest Democrats.
Hillary is getting older and more sour. Even 2008 will be too late for her. I think she made the ultimate mistake, she pulled a Cuomo. Her time was 2004, she didn't have the confidence or saavy to make the run now.
Their own merits notwithstanding - I believe the following potential 2008 candidates would have a good shot against Her Heinous:
Bill Owens
Rudy Giuliani
Jeb Bush
Condi Rice
Not only that, the Dem Party gets weaker and weaker every year. 4 more years of decline doesn't bode well for their 2008 candidate.
.
..In this year of available Suitcase NUKES...
...it ain't over till its over:
.."IS it SAFE?" = HILLARY on Senate Armed Services Committee..
http://www.TheAlamoFILM.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=629
HILLARY & TERRORISM's plan to regain the White House
http://www.Freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1022571/posts
.
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.