Posted on 12/24/2005 1:49:13 PM PST by 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.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
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.
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.
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
Let's put it this way: If hillary is elected, abortion will be the least of our problems.
Oh really? Who was the last 3rd party president?
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.
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.
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.
I'm confused. What is your definition of a "globalist?"
Gingrich is politically accepable, but he can't win for the reasons you mentioned.
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?
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.
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?
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.