Actually, I think it was decided for him and that is likely why, coupled with his belief that he really did win in 2000, he looks as bad as he does. Bitterness wears on a person.
.
.
Posted on 11/27/2004 12:02:43 PM PST by tjg
If anyone has some major rehabilitation work to do in the new year, it is Teresa Heinz Kerry. As the Kerrys head for their swank vacation home this year without the press corps tallying how much it cost, or the Secret Service following too closely on the slopes, the might-have-been first lady and still extremely major philanthropist has some major thinking to do about the damage she did to her own reputation in the major run that just ended.
(Excerpt) Read more at creators.com ...
The years ahead will be interesting - Susan is or at least was not a fan of Hillary. Let's see what she has to say as Hillary solidifies her dominance of the Democrat party.
One of the interesting things about this article is that the person taking control of the DNC will be an indicator of Hillarys dominance of the party.
Susans choice is Donna Brazile, who is not a Clinton insider, so I'd be surprised if Donna gets it. But we don't know. Hillary must be weighing her options. If she runs and looses, she goes on the scrap heap of failed presidential candidates. If she stays 'viable', there is not a foreseable end to her influence in the democratic party. So does she want to gamble all her influence for a run at the golden ring, or hang on to her position as the most powerful democrat as long as she can?
She may surprise us all and do something we haven't even thought of yet.
One thing is sure, the Clintons have used the Dem party to great advantage to themselves but to the detriment of the party, and Susan recognizes this. As a party loyalist, she wants the Clintons gone.
"As a party loyalist, she wants the Clintons gone."
Thanks, makes good sense; I agree with you.
bttt
No. That was Mary Beth Cahill.
An unfortunate choice of words.
This hardly seems worthy of a response, but it's beena slow day.
Purely as a matter of aesthetics, I prefer people who have some individuality to their features. That includes both men and women. As I suggested in my original post, I have little interest in the blowdry Barbie and Ken look that is so prevalent in the mass media. I enjoy looking at Greta for the same reason I enjoy looking at Estrich, and this is entirely aside from their political views. Same goes for Bill O'Reilly.
On the other hand there's Laurie Dhue, Linda Vester, Shepherd Smith. Eh. Their faces all look like they came out of a make-up kit. Boring.
But it does display his poor judgement. What are the chances that someone who makes poor judgements in personal matters, will make good judgements in matters of state?
Yeah, but if a DUhmmy calls you a skank, it is intended as a compliment.
Can't resist: Susan's smart and ethical, but I'm not surprised liberals and trolls don't like her. She has a way of speaking past the "knee jerk" of either party -- not a quick way to win the superficial.
All that's really wrong with her is her choice of mates.
All she did was to make a mistake in marrying an a$$hole.
She tried to do what a presumptive first lady was supposed
to do. Thank god that her inherited bucks didn't propel
the jerk into the white house.
Actually, I think it was decided for him and that is likely why, coupled with his belief that he really did win in 2000, he looks as bad as he does. Bitterness wears on a person.
.
.
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.