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 ...
He is so deluded. She will not be nominated, never mind elected. What people say in polls and what people do at the polls are 2 different things.
And I don't altogether trust the impartiality and methods of these pollsters either.
Do you think the President will even consider withdrawing the Alito nomination? Why? Just asking because I think the Alito nomination is pretty much a definite conclusion.
The war for the survival of America and Western civilization against the giant socialist left wing conspiracy and Islamofascism is more important than the abortion issue. That can be worked out later.
We must first survive an Islamofascist nuclear attack on America.
First things first.
hmm... Giuliani vs Hillary---- no contest, I vote of Giuliani... McCain vs Hillary--- not sure I will vote...
Dick, buddy, I share your revulsion of the Clintons, but ignoring the nation's prolife conservatives is not the way to defeat them.
This argument has nothing to do with whether Dr. Rice would make a good president. I believe that she would.
I am pro-life, but I am willing to stipulate that a President's view on abortion is not essential to his or her abolility to do her job. The elder Bush had a similiar view to Rice's.
Nevertheless, as I said before, the nomination of a pro-life Republican is bound to ignite a third-party candidacy that will hand the Democrat nominee the election.
There are other options besides Rice.
Seceretly I think Morris, in his heart of hearts, is rooting for this. The Democrats have disowned him. Without Clinton-hatred attract Conservative readers, his writing career is over.
I agree! I liked her at first,but after finding she is pro-abortion and her push for the palies=forgetaboutit!
Like it or not Gary, abortion is wrapped up in the struggle because no Conservative can win without a pro-life platform.
Something to keep in mind about Dick Morris: He is a toesucker.
I agree 100%. Condi wouldn't win. Make a great VP, though. I've always thought Morris was suspect and his incessant endorsement of her just confirms it for me. He knows way more about the Clintons than he reveals and the info he does give out is unproveable.
"No wonder they call us the Stupid Party," said a disgusted Republican operative in Washington. "You've got to wonder what these guys were thinking."
At issue was the publication of a report by David Barrett, an independent counsel who has spent the better part of a decade looking into some of the most hair-raising allegations of presidential malfeasance in American history.
Like most independent counsels, Barrett didn't set out on such a mission. He was assigned the duty of looking into whether former Housing and Urban Development Secretary Henry Cisneros committed tax fraud in trying to cover up payments to a former mistress.
Yet, as published reports have indicated, he soon discovered that he was onto something much bigger. He found unsettling evidence that Justice Department officials were actively interfering with the probe and even conducting surveillance of Barrett and his office. Worse, there were indications that Team Clinton was using key players at the IRS and Justice to harass, frighten and threaten people who somehow got in the former president's way.
The pattern was set early on, when the White House sicced the FBI on Billy Dale, who had served as the director of the White House Travel Office since the days of John F. Kennedy. They mounted a baseless probe of Dale's finances, while chasing after his daughter, his sister and others. Dale was guilty of holding a job coveted by presidential pal Harry Thomasson. But rather than simply firing Dale, the Clinton White House chose to destroy him.
By all accounts, the 400-page Barrett report is a bombshell, capable possibly of wiping out Hillary Rodham Clinton's presidential prospects. At the very least, it would bring to public attention a scandal that would make the Valerie Plame affair vanish into comical insignificance.
Democrats know this. Using provisions in the independent-counsel statute that permit people named in a report to review the allegations against them and file rebuttals, attorneys close to the Clintons have spent the better part of five years reviewing every jot and tittle of the charges arrayed against their clients and friends.
This careful and continuous monitoring of the report explains why Sens. Byron Dorgan, Dick Durbin and John Kerry took the highly unusual step earlier this year of trying to slip into an Iraq-war spending bill an amendment to suppress every word of the Barrett report. (Every other independent counsel finding has been printed in its entirety, with the exception of small sections containing classified material.)
http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/tonysnow/2005/12/09/178552.html
Are they going to let them fight to the death in a pit-- like in Conan the Barbarian? I'd watch the pay-per-view
I personally think he's just trying to sell books. He does underscore one important fact, though, namely that we don't have anyone to take on Hillary.
"We have much better talent on our side".
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.