Posted on 09/13/2004 12:27:52 PM PDT by ken5050
As many of you know, I have over the past four years occasionally chronicled the Clintons, from the perspective of what one hears and observes from Beautiful Downtown Chappaqua. Many Freepers have told me how much they enjoy my commentaries. I've ignored the rumors, the innuendos, the "tin-foil hat" theories. Indeed, there are many more very interesting details that I have deliberately chosen NOT to share with all of you. What I'm going to discuss now is admitted speculation on my part, but based upon a few conversations I've had in the last few days..and you'll have to trust my instincts on my sources..OK..here goes..
The moment this happens everyone will assume this has been a Clinton setup from the very beginning. That Clinton sabotaged the Kerry campaign by forcing Carville et. al. on JFK, that Clinton was the ultimate source of the phony TANG memo, etc. This will be the issue that everyone would be talking about. No, Hillary will have to win the nomination the hard way in 2008, including enduring pancake breakfasts in New Hampshire and many, many nights in Iowa Holiday Inns.
There's really only 3.
1) Fort Marcy Park
2) Air Wellstone
3) Bring Alix back from Kenya
She wants a mandate... not a hand-me-down. She'll have the nomination handed to her on a scarlet, velvet pillow while nubile, young lesbo's shower her path with rose petals!
Sorry.
I agree it would NOT be a good move at this point. Ignoring for the moment that SHE IS TOTALLY UNQUALIFIED FOR THE PRES POSITION, (which makes no difference to the YELLOW DOGS)...there is just too much dirt on the liberal Dem plate at this point. With the leftist, liberal media being blatantly exposed (Thanks Mr. Rather, et al)...LIBERAL is a four-letter word. And it just gets better.
In many ways, Hillary is NO DIFFERENT than Kerry. With the exception of incomprehensible flip-flopping, they are both Marxists, both internationalists, both appeasers, both military haters, both anti-capitalists, and both just good all-around SOCIALISTS WITH HARD-CORE LEFTIST AGENDAS. Not electable unless this country has just totally lost sight of why, and by whom, it was founded.
Kerry would never give up his chance to be POTUS. He has planned this for 30+ years. He is so out of touch that he doesn't realize that he is going to lose in November. They would have to drag him away kicking and screaming. This would not look good for the Dems. IMO
Oh I forgot one.
5. All the TV ads have already been purchased by the DNC till November.
Love the post. It's plausible, IMO. Also, because she wouldn't have to campaign for long, which she is terrible at. That is why she is hardly ever seen. To know her is to not like her. I think, though, she will wait because she thinks 2008 will be a sure thing. I would prefer she run now. Let's get it over with. We have a good candidate to beat her.
I'd be willing to sell a kidney. Who's with me?
Even if Lurch were genuinely threatened with Arkancide, I don't think he would step aside.
Please define #1 and #3 for me...I understand #2.
it is not in her interests to fight for a job that she can have handed to her in a few years. to speculate about this is a waste of time.
Hillary has other issues that may keep her from running right now.
http://www.judicialwatch.org/3823.shtml
Sorry forgot about number 6.
Hillary has already got her petitions in for all 50 states. Theoretically she is on more ballots than Nader should she wish to run.
I could not agree more. To go a step further, she's going to adjust from Kerry's sad senate record, and try and be as moderate as possible in the senate (won't matter, she is still just one senator, either she's on the winning side of popular bills or losing side).
She's going to make it hard to label her record leftist, she's a believer in triangulation and with the leftwing in her back pocket begging her to run in 2008, she can start running to the middle now.
There is absolutley no reason for her to want to run in 2004, I've said this since she declared she was running for the senate. To many freepers think of her the way the dems think of Karl Rove and Bush, evil, brilliant and stupid. She learns, adjusts, and modifies herself. She knows political innoculation techniques and how to campaign, and how to not repeat public mistakes.
Look for her try and be in the middle slightly left of center in the senate, while still blasting republicans, with more polish and then in 2008, finally give in, and make a run, while making the media foam with anticipation, thus drowning out competition that might be had, and insuring a nomination victory.
That's what I wonder,if there are any laws or regulations regarding a deadline or cut-off date to do this. I would think that there would be.
Hillary needs a close election. If Bush wins a mandate and successfully enacts the conservative agenda, Hillary won't win in 2008. Her party will be too weak.
I don't know.....First of all I don't think Hillary is someone to be worried about. She alienates many people and I don't think she is really a good candiaite to begin with. Interesting scenario though, makes you wonder, allthough it would be "too cute by half".
BWAHAHA! You have better odds for bin Laden to surrender on hands and knees to Dubua than Hillary replacing Kerry. He's their candidate. Accept it.
Don't kid yourself that she couldn't or wouldn't be defined. The Repubs would never roll over - I'd give every penny I had and so would millions of others to make sure there'd be a scorched earth policy to expose just who she is and what she reperesents.
She'll bide her time until '08. And she won't win then, either.
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.