Posted on 02/02/2006 1:46:05 PM PST by FerdieMurphy
Political junkies are witnessing a true phenomenon in presidential politics: more than two years before the next presidential election cycle there's a movement to target someone considered by the news media and pundits to be a frontrunner in 2008 -- Hillary Rodham Clinton.
Even with softball interviews by the likes of Katie Couric and Diane Sawyer, and with almost a daily practice by some members of the mainstream news media of publishing her press releases as if they were news, Hillary Clinton is facing tough opposition not only from Republicans but also from members of her own party.
Right after a poll showed last week that most Americans would “definitely” not vote for her, Senator John Kerry suddenly sprung to life on the ski slopes of Switzerland to head up an attempt at filibustering the confirmation of US Supreme Court nominee Judge Samuel Alito. It's no secret within the Beltway that Kerry believes he has a shot at the presidency even after losing to President Bush in 2004. There's no doubt that Kerry monitors the polls that are showing Hillary is vulnerable to attack from both the right and the left.
In fact, there are many Republicans storing their symbolic "flip-flop" sandals for the next Presidential campaign since Clinton is all over the place on issues, taking positions based on whom she's addressing. She's for tough border security, but votes no on legislation that would increase the number of border agents and detention beds. She claims she supports the war, but says she's sorry she voted to go to war after the reigning queen of the anti-war movement, Cindy Sheehan, spanked her in California by calling her a warmonger. She wants to curtail illegal immigration, but she also wants to provide illegal immigrants with education and healthcare.
Former staff members in Bill Clinton’s White House are privately saying she could be a risky choice. To the left, an anti-war “stop Hillary” movement is gathering traction, threatening her ability to unite the Democrats. Which is possibly why Al Gore is criss-crossing the US giving the most vitriolic speeches for left-wing groups such as MoveOn.Org. He too envisions another shot at the White House prize.
According to the Sunday Times, Mike McCurry, Bill Clinton’s White House press secretary, claims he fears the 2008 campaign could be brutal for the former first lady. He said he remembers how she became a “lightning rod” for conservatives during her husband’s years in office.
“She has proven that she works hard at being senator and does that job well, but bringing the country together and moving it in a different direction is an entirely different matter,” McCurry said. “It is very hard to reinvent yourself in politics.”
However, McCurry proves that old habits, such as blowing smoke when it comes to the Clintons, are hard to break. Ask McCurry what piece of legislation Hillary has sponsored and you will get a glazed look. When New Yorkers are asked what's she done for New York State or for the nation, besides bloviating at functions and hobnobbing with the Manhattan and Hollywood elite, they usually answer with abstract notions such as "she gives us hope."
It's the same reaction you get if you ask African-Americans what Bill Clinton, the "first black president" did for them in his eight years in office. They think and think and then say, "He gave us hope." Hope doesn't pay the rent, feed the kids or make car payments. The true answer for both Clintons is: they do nothing but talk your ears off.
A CNN/Gallup/USA Today poll last week found that 51% of Americans “definitely” would not vote for Hillary and only 16% said they definitely would. Among men, 60% said they would not vote for her. And 43% of women said they wouldn't vote for her either.
“Ultimately the issue is: do we turn to something new? We’ve been through the Clintons, we’ve been through the Gores, we’ve been through the Kerrys, all of whom are known quantities in politics,” said Leon Panetta, a driving force within the Democrat Party and a Bill Clinton loyalist.
The Democrats have a new rising star in Mark Warner, who recently stepped down as governor of the conservative state of Virginia. His proven appeal to moderate voters is attracting Democrats of all shades who are eager to win, but he remains little known on the national scene at this point. However, that is likely to change as the perception of Senator Clinton as damaged good starts to take hold within the Democrat Party.
The doubts about Clinton’s electabilty are growing almost with each speech. On Martin Luther King's Birthday, during a memorial in Harlem, Hillary chose to attack Republicans rather than honor the civil rights icon. She even managed to include the words "plantation" and "Republicans" in the same sentence in order to continue the myth of Republican racism.
Talk host Laura Ingraham was incensed over Hillary's playing of the race card. Ingraham told her listeners it was a speech designed to create fear in blacks that the evil Republicans can't be trusted. Even news stories about her ignoring washed-up Calypso singer Harry Belafonte at a New York function were promulgated to protect her from being linked to the rantings of an ignorant fool who prides himself as an intellectual.
Conservatives know that Hillary's heart is with Belafonte, but her mind wants to reside once again in the White House. As with singer Madonna, Hillary tries and tries to reinvent herself and it could have worked had there been no Internet news and blogs, no talk radio, and no Fox News Channel.
Clinton’s small successes with voters in the small towns in New York is seen as proof that she can win over conservatives, although according to last week’s poll, 90% of Republicans will “definitely” not vote for her. Even New York Democrats -- many of whom are former Reagan Democrats -- may be comfortable with her warming a seat in the senate, but giving her the power of President and Commander-in-Chief is a horse -- or donkey -- of a different color.
New Republic magazine, the left-wing weekly, argues in its current issue that the voters of rural New York bear little comparison to diehard Republican voters in the South and Midwest. “She is going to have to bring something else to the national stage,” it warned.
So folks, the Stop Hillary train is leaving the station. And it's coming to a station near you.
"That the percentage of men who won't vote for her is only 60% shows that a lot of men just haven't been paying attention."
Poll was taken in San Francisco maybe?
And don't underestimate him come November,
2006 ???
Yeah that's what we all said about Clinton until November 1992. People are just too smart to vote for that. But they did, twice,
No real internet and NO F.R.!!!
"The more I think about it the more I'm convinced that the Dems will nominate Al Gore again."
I'm thinking you may be right. ;)
Is it any wonder:
U S Congressional Record/Senate
106th Congress
June 23, 1999
pgs. S7483-S7486
The Clinton National Security Scandal and Coverup
Senator James Inhofe
(top right hand cornor)
I'm not sure who it will be, but it wont be Hilary!
No, 2008.
Don't tell anyone butt, Over-the-Hilary's problem is nobody likes her!
Pray for W and Our Freedom Fighters
Hillary shouldn't be worried about the extreme left right now .. she can entice them back to her side once they realize it's her or some conservative.
But .. I think she can win her senate seat without them.
And .. for whatever it's worth .. I think Hillary is compling with the Sheehan/Soros groups because they are actually spouting her REAL AGENDA. Conyers (NY) heads up the "impeachment" group - there is no way you can convince me Hillary is not backing that scum.
Hillary can't openly get a RINO to run as a third-party candidate, but then Bill didn't openly get Ross Perot to run in 1992. (Whether there were any secret understandings behind the scenes, I don't know.) The media would much rather have Hillary win than any Republican, so they could egg on one of the losers in the Republican primaries in 2008 to run as an independent...and Hillary would be the beneficiary.
the infowarrior
If so, I'm trying to imagine a Florida-type 2008 recount in, say, Texas, or Tennessee....
She needs to get the name of Susan Estrich's doctor.
The Democrats are between a rock and a hard place. Their most electable people in the general elections are from the South and midwest, such as the ex-governor of Virginia. However, their base that actually selects their Presidential candidate ir the primdaries, are frothing at the mouth, and only a hard left candidate will make them happy...especially in 2008 after they swallowed Kerry because they were told he was "electable". Even HE was not leftist enough for them, and they feel no that they will no longer sacrifice their principles just to select someone "electable".
Right -- I understand that. Sorry if I gave the wrong impression.
My point is that he probably doesn't seem as "young and dynamic" to Democrats as you might think . . . as evidenced by his poor showing in 2004 and the fact that most people who listen to him speak more than once think of him as a repetitive bore.
His smarmy lawyer persona probably turns off a lot of people, too.
Yet Edwards had a late surge in the primaries, and although Kerry won nearly all of them, Edwards was close behind. (Objects in your mirror are bigger than they seem, as he warned Kerry.)
He won in the two Carolinas, IIRC, and was tied with Clark in a third state.
And I still don't understand why Kerry picked this one-term senator and pretty boy for a running mate, but he must have had his reasons.
Near as I can figure from reading their nasty websites, lefties don't regard the '04 loss as Edwards' fault, only Kerry's. They LIKE the Breck girl, and phoniness doesn't bother them. Wesley Clark wasn't even a Democrat until just before the election, but they idolize him. Does any rational person think Clark became a Dem on principle?
And then there's my 16-year-cycle theory. Since 1960, every 16 years they go with a youthful "new broom" type with a good head of hair and a young daughter hanging onto his young wife. And every 16 years they cash in on Republican fatigue---8 to 12 years of Republican presidency preceding them. Add to this the low immunity against populism, plus the lib media behind him, and I see Edwards sweeping the '08 primaries. I hope I'm wrong, but the voters fell for a fraud like Bill Clinton, so anything's possible.
I think Kerry picked him as his running mate in the hopes that having a Southerner on the ticket gave him a chance to win one or two Southern states that would otherwise be won overwhelmingly by the GOP. Times certainly have changed, and voters obviously aren't fooled by this kind of nonsense. Having Edwards on the ticket gave the Democrats the same results in North Carolina in 2004 as they got from Tennessee in 2000 with Al Gore on the national ticket.
I hope I'm wrong, but the voters fell for a fraud like Bill Clinton.
No, they didn't. Clinton was elected with 43% of the vote in 1992, and re-elected at the height of his popularity in 1996 with less than 50% of the vote. Both of the losing candidates in the two elections since then have exceeded Clinton's highest vote total by a minimum of 3 million votes.
What also made him credible was that he had an enormous personal fortune that he could use to match the campaign cash raised by the major party candidates.
Neither of the two points of credibility are repeatable at will by Hillary Clinton. She may well try, but it is reasonable to believe that it will not be successful...
the infowarrior
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.