shes still gonna have all that blood on her hands...and that strong penchant for Panther Whizz!!
color her unelectable!
Posted on 04/16/2015 9:26:00 AM PDT by Kaslin
The "new" Hillary Clinton, branded "Hillary 2.0" by some political pundits, seems at first blush the same Hillary Clinton of Bill Clinton's presidency and of her unsuccessful 2008 presidential bid. But conservatives who bemoan the years of Barack Obama must carefully consider how they approach Ms. Clinton in 2016.
Consider it a given that most voters inclined to vote Republican are adamantly opposed to a Hillary Clinton presidency. Any Republican candidate would be preferable to four or eight years of another Clinton presidency, right?
Yes, but here is where the strategic part of this analysis comes into play.
Consider the possibility that the GOP nominates another lackluster candidate for president such as a John McCain or Mitt Romney. In other words, a sure-fire loser.
I've made the argument before that in such an instance, conservatives should be praying she wins her party's nomination and with as little real opposition as well. Why? Because there is more than enough enmity and ill will between the Clintons and President Obama to basically guarantee a wholesale replacement of the president's administration and a rework of many of his policies. Obama's lukewarm reaction to her announcement of recent days merely ads to this theory.
If Clinton can win her nomination without the liberal wing of her party ambushing her with another "inspiring" leftist, as was the case in 2008, Ms. Clinton could bide her time until the November election and at the very least move her center-left party more to a center-left-but-pro-USA position. It's not much, but it would be better than what we have today.
If, like most conservatives, you simply can't stomach the possibility of Hillary 2.0 as the "default program" for 2016, then even more strategic thought is required.
Jeb Bush would likely be the one candidate capable of raising the money and putting together the strongest "establishment"-backed campaign against Hillary Clinton. It would be more than likely that a Bush-Clinton faceoff would result in a national deadlock, where a few swing states and their late-night final vote tallies would determine the outcome in November 2016.
In a sense, that's the safest route to avoid Hillary 2.0 because it makes the final tip of the political jump ball in the last second of the game for the White House competitive -- something Republicans have not witnessed in a long time.
But the Clinton versus Bush match-up appears to be gaining little excitement from Republican voters, hungry not only for a win but, to steal Mr. Obama's slogan, "change they can believe in."
Yes, Rand Paul is the dark horse candidate. And Ted Cruz is the likely early evangelical choice. Dr. Ben Carson could become the unique outsider, a softer spoken Herman Cain of the GOP contest. And the list goes on and on. Chris Christie would "bust up the joint," but his style and positions might not fly in more traditional Republican areas of the country.
Rick Perry could be resurrected as a more articulate bespectacled candidate this go-around. And Rick Santorum could wait in the wings and pick apart Cruz's evangelical support should Cruz out-debate himself at some point. Donald Trump could keep the entire process lively and with a shocking outcome.
But along with Bush, two GOP candidates emerge early on as the "anti-Hillary 2.0" leaders. Gov. Scott Walker has virtually nothing in common with Ms. Clinton. With Walker, there's no Ivy League connection lurking behind a facade of "I'm one of the people." In fighting for all he has gained in life, including taking on unions, Walker offers a tenacious contrast to Clinton.
And then there is Sen. Marco Rubio. Forever underestimated by the GOP establishment, Rubio contrasts with Hillary 2.0 in a unique manner. A youthful Hispanic senator with strong state legislative experience to boot, Rubio could go toe-to-toe with Clinton in debates and turn Clinton's ultra-wealthy circumstances into a strong case of hypocrisy.
But for those who want Clinton stopped at all costs, consider the price paid in 2008. That requires some real thought should the GOP blow it again in 2016. While Hillary 2.0 may seem contrived and certainly not a conservative's choice, she's no Barack Obama. And that's a redeeming quality these days.
Vote Cruz, then we can concentrate on neutralizing the press, and the leftist online activists without having to worry about what our guy is doing for once.
Lady McB will be gone by spring.
-...and of her unsuccessful 2008 presidential bid.—
I notice that when a Democrat doesn’t make the cut, it is an ‘unsuccessful’ presidential bid. But when a Republican doesn’t win an election, it called a ‘FAILED’ presidential bid.
What is astounding is that she has any traction in this campaign at all.
5 decades of crime, corruption, and cronyism.
It’s all well documented facts.
Instead of the Federal pen the media want to put her in the WH.
A lot of column inches/bytes used only to close out the piece with this sentence of damning by faint praise. I'm having a hard time figuring out the writer's point unless it was to say that the GOP has a strong likelihood to shoot itself in the foot and most of us here already knew that.
I kid you not, Mikey, this is a FABULOUS idea!!
Nothing brings a democrat politician closer to understanding the plight of the besieged taxpaying middle class than subsisting on an income
of only a few million dollars a year earned by giving speeches at $200,000.00 a pop.
THE IDEA came from fellow freeper who shall remain nameless unless they choose otherwise.
the flustration factor would be VERY high indeed!!
the “hands up” tie in...is PRICELESS!!!
In my view Baraq is just the front man for the Chicago Mob.
He’s got the Rasputinesque ValJ and Axlegrease to do the policy work.
Hillary is the real deal. She’s the senior don of the Clinton Crime Family.
” Hands up, don’t cut! “
Agreed. Hillary Clinton, for all her many faults, would have been preferable to Barack Obama and should we suffer a defeat in 2016, I'd rather it be to Hillary Clinton than about any other Democrat who will throw their hat into the ring. O'Malley? Warren? Sanders? Joaquin Castro? God, help us.
In her cold, black heart, she's closer to a Rockefeller Republican than the full-blown communists her challengers are likely to be (and her predecessor proved to be). She'll govern as her husband did, with her finger in the air following the direction of the wind.
what might be even more effective is to simply raise our hands....EN MASSE not saying a bloody word!!!
I can smell the fear!
The writer's point was that if we field a weak candidate, we stand a good chance of losing and would we rather lose to Hillary Clinton or someone else?
In 2008, we lost to someone else. Look how that worked out.
Or, any other type of red gloves ... ski gloves, evening gloves, boxing gloves ...
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.