Dick Morris: 'Condi vs. Hillary'

The New York Times ^ | December 25, 2005 | DICK MORRIS and EILEEN McGANN

[presidio9]

I, Hillary Rodham Clinton, do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of president of the United States and will, to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, so help me God."

On January 20, 2009, at precisely noon, the world will witness the inauguration of the forty-fourth president of the United States. As the chief justice administers the oath of office on the flag-draped podium in front of the U.S. Capitol, the first woman president, Hillary Rodham Clinton, will be sworn into office. By her side, smiling broadly and holding the family Bible, will be her chief strategist, husband, and copresident, William Jefferson Clinton.

If the thought of another Clinton presidency excites you, then the future indeed looks bright. Because, as of this moment, there is no doubt that Hillary Clinton is on a virtually uncontested trajectory to win the Democratic nomination and, very likely, the 2008 presidential election. She has no serious opposition in her party. More important, a majority of all American voters - 52 percent - now supports her candidacy.

But her victory is not inevitable. There is one, and only one, figure in America who can stop Hillary Clinton: Secretary of State Condoleezza "Condi" Rice. Among all of the possible Republican candidates for president, Condi alone could win the nomination, defeat Hillary

Condoleezza Rice, in fact, poses a mortal threat to Hillary's success. With her broad-based appeal to voters outside the traditional Republican base, Condi has the potential to cause enough major defections from the Democratic Party to create serious erosion among Hillary's core voters. She attracts the same female, African American, and Hispanic voters who embrace Hillary, while still maintaining the support of conventional Republicans.

This is a race Condi can win.

[presidio9]

Want to be I can post some quotes from "conservative" freepers who say they hope Hillary wins if McCain is the nominee? We already have plenty of posts on this thread alone saying they will "stay home" or "vote third party" if it's McCain vs. Hillary.

You're missing the point. I agree with you that this is a bad thing. But I'm not denying that this will happen. Which is exactly why considering a McCain candidacy is a waste of time.

[Prime Choice]

When the people who SUPPOSEDLY hate McCain over Campaign Finance Reform start condemning Zig Zag Zell for having the SAME position on that issue, then they might have SOME crediblity.

There's a big difference between authoring the assault on the First Amendment and supporting it.

Besides, I'm not being asked to vote for Zell Miller, am I?

McCain is nothing but a RINO who panders to the Liberal media. Once you recognize that simple reality, you'll have that much-vaunted credibility of which you speak.

[section9]

Normally, I'd step in here and trash anyone who is badmouthing Condi, but I've grown tired of debating people who call Condi a babykiller. Needless to say, I strongly suspect that Condi will be our candidate in '08 (she's simply the best, and she'll have Bush's support), and I also believe that most pro-lifers will be pleasantly surprised with her position on life issues.

But I have really grown tired of debating this with people, so with that, I leave you with an Oliphant cartoon. Although he's a moonbat liberal, he appears to have caught the Condi bug, as well:

Be Seeing You,

Chris

[hinckley buzzard]

I believe, as bad as abortion is, that if hillary is elected abortion will be only one of our problems.

Let's put it this way: If hillary is elected, abortion will be the least of our problems.

[presidio9]

BESIDES, we don't have a 2-party system--there are MANY other parties to choose from, despite the fact that the MSM & the Republocratic Party try to stifle them when they attempt to get their message out.

Oh really? Who was the last 3rd party president?

[presidio9]

The sad fact is that very few people in this country will ever care about politics as much as we do. Each party's candidate gets 35% of the vote no matter what. This precludes any legitmate challenge from a third party regarless of what the media does. All a third party candidate can do is take votes away from the candidate he is most similiar to.

[jeltz25]

So, who's out there that will be a firm leader in the war on terror and foreign policy and ALSO be good on domestic issues and have the support of the social conservatives?

Rice, Rudy, McCain, Romney don't meet that. Allen seems good but he has all the charisma of Al Gore and hasn't exactly distinguished himself in the Senate. Brownback is too blase and probably will be seen as too focused on abortion to win. Pence and other congressmen simply don't have the gravitas.

If the dems are smart they'll pick Mark Warner. The GOP really needs to find someone and it would help if Bush would at least back someone rather then setting up this huge free for all.

[rapture-me]

But do we have better talent who can beat Hillary?

While I am upset his about handling of his wife a few years ago I would like to see a Newt/Condi ticket. As far as Newt goes, "Let him without sin cast the first stone". Newt is no worse than the rest of them, and he's a lot smarter and more conservative the whole bunch.

[presidio9]

I'm confused. What is your definition of a "globalist?"

[presidio9]

Gingrich is politically accepable, but he can't win for the reasons you mentioned.

[jeltz25]

not to mention I don't think Americans want a President named "Newt". I wonder about Barnour. He's a governor, not connected with the Bush administration, a southerner, good on social issues and business. What's your opinon of Barbour?

[rapture-me]

Gingrich is politically acceptable, but he can't win for the reasons you mentioned.

Normally I would agree. But with Hillary's past he would look like a saint. Besides, very few people even know about it & the ones that find out about it during the campaign will say "He's just doing what guys do." or "Just more dirty politics" . Most occasional voters are mostly just oblivious freeloaders that are more interested in what the candidate will do for THEM than for their country.

[FreeKeys]

According to Rasmussen only 30% of those polled would definitely vote for her while 37% would definitely vote against her. Her negatives are higher then her positives also. I am not minimizing the witch or underestimating her but i do not believe the media will be able to shield her to the extent necessary to keep the dirt hidden.

I BET THE CLINTON MACHINE IS ALREADY LAYING THE FOUNDATION FOR A "CONSERVATIVE-SOUNDING" 3RD PARTY CANDIDATE LIKE ROSS PEROT, WITHOUT WHOM BILLY JEFF COULD NEVER HAVE WON -- AND SHE KNOWS IT.

[presidio9]

MY definition of "globalist" is someone who ignores protecting the borders of the US & our sovereignty as a nation. Someone who is a member of or have ties to "global governance" groups such as the Council on Foreign Relations, & nominates such members into their Cabinate if elected POTUS.

Although this is really a subject for another thread, I'll bite:
Which of our borders is facing a national security crisis? Is Canada planning an attack?