Posted on 07/05/2005 4:57:20 AM PDT by johnny7
Below is Richard Poe's review of Edward Klein's The Truth About Hillary. To see his exclusive interview with Edward Klein, click here.
Can Hillary win the presidency in 2008? Yes, warns Edward Klein. In his new book, The Truth About Hillary: What She Knew, When She Knew It, and How Far She’ll Go to Become President, Klein makes the case that, unless Republicans wake from their slumber, 2008 could well see a restoration of the Clinton co-presidency. Hillary would then have a shot at "sixteen years in the White House — the longest incumbency since Franklin Delano Roosevelt."
(Excerpt) Read more at frontpagemag.com ...
Missouri turning blue. I don't think so.
Texas, Turn Blue? You've got to be kidding!
I live in Texas, and most of the hispanics and a lot of the blacks are as conservative as I am.
And don't miss
FrontPage Interviews Edward Klein
By Richard Poe
FrontPageMagazine.com | July 5, 2005
http://www.frontpagemag.com/articles/Printable.asp?ID=18660
"Seeding the grassroots with her loyalists is key to Hillary’s strategy for 2008. "She’s putting Democrats all over America in her debt, building relationships, establishing a firm control over the machinery of the state parties outside New York," says "a leading expert on campaign-finance laws" whom Klein quotes anonymously."
If you're one of those who actually thinks Hillary Clinton CAN'T win, you are very wrong!!! The fact that she has quashed ANY interviews on the major networks...that alone should scare you to death!!
I personally don't believe that Hillary... even with the help of the MSM, could hide the pent-up wickedness of this woman over a long campaign.
She is her own worst enemy.
I agree with you.
I finished Klein's book, this weekend (a really good read IMHO) and get the feeling we could be totally screwed if the Republicans don't get their act together pretty damn soon.
Bingo!
She does not have the ability to schmooze, like her husband, and too much baggage to make it to the White House.
Lets see if this fictional thread we've all concocted here will generate a pulse with the dummies out there in the heartland, Tee Hee!
This weekend I saw a promo for the new ABC TV show with Geena Davis..she plays the first female president..from the 10 seconds I saw, it looks soooooo bad it could well cost Hillary the election..
"She does not have the ability to schmooze, like her husband, and too much baggage to make it to the White House."
Wrong. She's more than smart enough to "schmmoze" with several of the Republican senators AND congressmen. She has learned to control her leftist comments (choosing to remain quiet a lot of the time)...her true self will only come out after she's won. Just look at the Republican senators who are willing to speak alongside her or help her.
The book reads as an effort to detoxify much of Mrs. Clinton's history. Most of this stuff is never going to see the light of day again in an election campaign.
As to a couple of the really serious issues in her past, Klein does not address the real facts. Vince Foster didn't commit suicide; and overspending the White House remodeling budget is not the kind of issue that would have motivated him to commit suicide in any case. And Klein glosses over the evidence that demonstrates that she is not in fact very smart or talented or intellectually qualified to hold a demanding senior executive position.
At the point we get to a presidential election contest in 2008, voter decisions are not going to be addressed to the fact that she is a lesbian; or that her commitment to government is anything other than a farce to support her objective of obtaining power.
Another post here is an expression of concern about a prospective third party candidacy of Guiliani or McCain. The mainstream political view is that the Republican candidate is going to be McCain and that Guiliani is likely to be one of the two or three most likely Vice Presidential nominees. Now maybe the poster is prepared to view the Republicans as the third party risk--I am; but I doubt that is a common view here.
Republicans win elections when we are perceived to have candidates that appeal to the fundamental values of the core Republican constituency--freedom; constitutional rights; limited government; and commitment to the Judeo Christian moral foundation of our country.
Bush II won the last election because of the perception that Supreme Court protection of our constitutional liberty would be threatened by Democrat appointment of replacement justices; and because of the perception that the Dems were opposed to the fundamental Judeo Christian values on which our government is based. Ten million Americans who did not vote in any of the past three elections went to the polls to vote for Bush II for those reasons.
Sure--Mrs. Clinton is terrible. But on the narrow issues that motivate the core constituency, none of the currently prominent Republican candidates are any better.
And Slick Hillary is going to promise action on several fronts that have broad appeal to Republicans--border control; balanced budget to name two. She may well also be able to shoehorn a foreign policy perscription for limited overseas military commitment into her general internationalist views.
It is time to face the fact that if the choice is between Mrs. Clinton and a couple of Liberal Republicans, she is going to win. And to further consider the proposition that a broad based well financed third party effort on behalf of a conservative constitutionalist is the only real hope to preserve our way of life.
Texas is turning blue? Really? I wonder why for the first time in over a hundred years the legislature went Republican and the statewide offices have been swept by republicans since 1998. Republican percentages have been increasing in the state since the 1980s, in 1988 bush senior got 56%, 1992 44%(but ross perot got 22%), in 1996 bob dole got 49% with perot stealing a good chunk and in 2000 republicans got 59% and this year we got 61% of the state. GEE, its really trending blue...
Missouri? we got 52% of the vote in 1984 44% in 1992(21 to the little hand grenade that could), 41% in 1996 (we lost it that year), 50.4% in 2000, and 53% in 2004. It's really trending blue there..
As for Iowa we lost it in 1988, dukakis won with 55%, we got 43% in 1992, 39.9% in 1996, got 48.3% in 2000 to gores 48.6%, and this year we got 50% and won it for the first time since 1984. It's really trending blue there..
The only state in there that seems to be trending up in the air is Ohio. In 1988 we won 55% of the vote, 38.3% in 1992
,41 % in 1996, 50% in 2000 and 50% in 2004. So this author's claim that hillary would take those 4 states is off.
However if she took 3 southwestern states, new mexico, colorado, and new mexico which are all really up for grabs thats 19 EV's which swings the election. So she may pick richardson for veep who could help there. However if we had someone like pawlenty somewhere on the ticket(my personal favorite being Allen-Pawlenty) who would pick up minnesota most likely we offset this effect.
The woman has been an embedded 'virus' in American politics since Watergate. Since leaving the White House, she has been like a cancer-in-remission. She will 'activate' again... once she returns to the Oval Office.
Unless the Republicans really screw up badly, the democRATS should never win another election for the following reasons:
1. They have aborted over 40 million voters. There have been studies showing that the vast majority of women seeking abortions have liberal views and vote that way.
2. The internet and talk radio now give the other side of the story. Walter Cronkite and MSM can no longer say something and the general public take it as gospel fact.
3. Hate and venom does not win elections.
Four words: Independent candidate John McCain
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.