Replies

Kerry got away with it

And he came damn close to winning, even running on no substance and 4 months of Vietnam service 35 years ago.

Those who keep saying Hillary can't win need to look at how close Kerry came---considering his lack of substance, against a sitting war-time President. He damn near won. Had the OBL tape not shown up the weekend before the election--and reminded many that terrorism was still a real threat--John Kerry would be President.

Right now, based on name value, Hillary Clinton is the only name of National recognition. Treat her as a light-weight threat and Pubbies will be the ones seeking solace and counseling as she is sworn in in January '09.

There is not one GOP name in circulation that can compete with Hillary Clinton for '08. (If there were, one would be challenging her for '06, yet none, so far, have voiced interest. Why not?)

"Those who keep saying Hillary can't win need to look at how close Kerry came---considering his lack of substance, against a sitting war-time President."

I agree Kerry got closer than most would have liked. But there was another dynamic going on that doesn't get a lot of scrutiny. Kerry only won one state that Gore didn't win in 2000, and that was a small EV northeastern states. NH maybe? But in all the states that Gore and Kerry won, The percentages they won by were much slimmer in 2004 than 2000.

At least some of that is due to the candidate, but everyone knows, even the Demwits, that some of that is the increasing irrelevance of the lame stream, old media. And once that toothpaste is out, it's not going to be easy to push it back in the tube. 2008 will see even less relevance of the LSM, and I think the kid gloves they treated Kerry with and the overwhelming rejection of their "Kerry Good, Bush Bad" message taught them that that play isn't going to work anymore.

Another thing is that I think with Kerry, the LSM showed unbelievable restraint in what they didn't cover. But that was a game they can't play anymore either, because the Beast wouldn't be an unknown to people outside of NY and MA. They may as well try to stop night from falling than not report the stench that comes from the klintoons. There's so much stench that comes from them that the only thing that would smell worse is if LSM ignored it completely.

I'm not saying the LSM would like it, but I think their little trick with Kerry won't play the same with Shrillary and they know it.

I respectfully disagree and don't find the results from this past election anything to worry about. True, Kerry came dang close, but one cannot consider the results of any election in a vacuum. Look at Clinton, who had the "peace and prosperity" and charisma and was a great speaker and a "people person" but never managed to get 50% despite running against a lackluster opponent.

Kerry was lackluster, too, on top of his undesirable Vietnam activities, but he had a fully united, fired-up, anti-Bush democrat party (which our side lacked in '96 despite similar anti-Clinton sentiments) and more money than any other democrat candidate. He also had on his side the MSM gunning for Bush. And add to that the fact that Bush, make no mistake, had huge electoral liabilities--"Vietnam-like" Iraq "quagmire," "Herbert Hoover economy," lack of WMD's, high gas prices. Also, he's hardly Daniel Webster when it comes to speaking.

Therefore, in my view it's something of a small miracle that Bush was able to pull it out.

Re: post #51. Good one.

There is not one GOP name in circulation that can compete with Hillary Clinton for '08.

The right will have to go with a celebrity, if she runs, to counter her 'name' recognition. I'd suggest nominating someone like Tom Sellek (sp?) whose experience with that fat tard Rosie O'donnel indicates he's very pro-gun and might be right-leaning on other issues as well.

Added bonus: that "slammed-shut" sound would be the 'arousal gap' closing very quickly on the pantsuit pignoid.