Posted on 02/02/2006 1:46:05 PM PST by FerdieMurphy
"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.