Why some of us fear Clinton?

WorldNetDaily.com ^ | July 22, 1999 | J. R. Nyquest

[Sefton]

A visiting professor was the speaker. He gave a rousing talk on overthrowing the "dictatorship of the bourgeoisie" in America. How would this be accomplished? By taking over the Democratic Party through its left wing. The speaker said it was possible to elect a stealth socialist president, who would effect a peaceful transition to socialism during the next great economic down-turn. Capitalism would be unmasked as a bankrupt system. The people would then support a new socialist system. All businesses would be nationalized by the government and run like the Post Office. This socialist president, said the speaker, could be elected in either 1988 or 1992. The only problem was that of timing. When would the next major economic downturn hit?

[Sefton]

This column is from 1999. It now looks like Bill Clinton was only the set-up pitcher to the closer, Barack Obama.

[montomike]

I guess that idiot child forgot to factor in the birth of the internet!

[Rudder]

Can’t happen here.

[RWB Patriot]

Just yesterday, one of my co-workers was talking about how he could smell the fear from the Republicans because Obama was winning. When I pointed out Obama’s inexperience (I referred to him as “a five-year jury member who now thinks he’s qualified to be a judge”), he said every President, with the exception of Clinton, was in over his head.

He then said Obama was like Clinton.

People like him make me fearful of the next four years.

[Reaganesque]

But Sarah Palin’s inexperience disqualifies her, right?

[Sefton]

A high ranking Russian defector said the tape was in his wife's possession. It had a young Clinton asking to join the Communist Party, but being talked out of it because he would be more helpful as a stealth member.

[paudio]

Compared to 0bama, Bill Clinton was a centrist. In fact, Clinton's and Blair's were considered the third way: it is still in the realm of capitalism where markets are left to grow, at the same time the government takes care the 'social issue' through welfare program.

I honestly don't know yet how 0bama--if he is elected--will fare, because he keeps lying about what he's gonna do.

[RWB Patriot]

He never said that, though he was one of the first people I heard cry “Sexism” when Hitlery wasn’t given the nomination.

Palin’s the equivilent of an ADA wanting to move up to DA. She may not have as much experience as Obama, but she has the right experience and isn’t trying to bite off more than she can chew.

[RWB Patriot]

He’ll probably just be a yes man to the RATs in Congress.

[Michael.SF.]

You are being sarcastic, I hope.

[Slyfox]

The Communist Party of America supported Bill Clinton.

Right now, at CPA headquarters, they have Obama posters hanging up all over the place. Is it any wonder why they are not running a candidate in this presidential election?

Check out my profile page and substitute Obama for the Clintons.

[Rudder]

I hope, too.

[Harry Wurzbach]

I think the Clintons are more about power than ideology.

Thinking ahead, should Obama lose, then you will see a purge in the Democrat Party which will cut out the left wing moonbats (Kos, MoveOn, Dean, etc...) and restore plenty of the Clintons’ buddies into the higher levels of the party. I’m sure they will also get rid of as many state presidential caucuses as possible under the guise of selecting a nominee who can actually win a general election.

Should Obama lose, then Clinton will be the only Dem to have won the presidency in the last 30 years. With all of the advantages the Democrats have had in this election cycle, and with Obama receiving unprecedented media fellatio, that will be downright incredible. Sure, the race card will be played, again, by Obama and his supporters in the party, but I think that will be recognized as being weak. For a Democrat to lose this year, well, that takes some doing.

I guess the good news for America would be that the Democrat Party will be forced to move to the center. I think the lunatic fringe will see their power within the party diminished. And, hey, that would be a good thing for this country.

[Michael.SF.]

It now looks like Bill Clinton was only the set-up pitcher to the closer, Barack Obama.

I do not think it will happen that quickly. Americans are always very 'immediate', in terms of their gratification, especially in the business world. They want shipments or bookings, now, this week, this month or this quarter. In general we have a poor long term sight. The Europeans are much better at this then we are and the Asians, are even better then the Europeans at planning for the long term.

Rather then a baseball analogy, consider a Football analogy: Clinton would represent a first round draft choice of a solid lineman, offensive or defensive, the kind of guy to build on for the future.

Obama, represents a number one pick with high potential, a running back or wide receiver. But he is no QB.

In order for their 'team' to jell and be successful they need two things:

First, a solid career from Obama, followed by a QB that can turn them into a championship contender.

Big problem though, they need fan support.

Clinton lost that in '94 with Hitlarycare. If Obama makes a similar mistake, then that delays the inevitable for another ten years.