Chris Matthews-'Hillary Clinton is Now Calling the Shots for Senate Democrats'

MSNBC and Newsmax ^ | January 9, 2002 | Carl Limabcher

[ewing]

Move over Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle-Junior New York Senator Hillary Clinton is taking over.

At least that is the word from MSNBC Hardball host Chris Matthews, who said that in Tuesdays swearing in ceremony for the new Congress, Mrs. Clinton's Democratic colleagues made quite a show of kissing her ring.

It all happened out of camera range said Matthews who described the scene he witnessed to radio talker Don Imus on Thursday Morinings 'Imus in the Morning' political gabfest program.

Asking about the FOX News polls showing that Mrs. Clinton is the 2004 Presdiential Nomination frontrunner for the Democrats the MSNBC-TV talker responded 'You know what is impressive? Sitting in the Senate Press Gallery and looking down realizing that Hillary Clinton is the leader of the Senate Democrats.'

'She is the boss,' Matthews observed.

'Everyone was circling around her when they were having that big dispute over unemployment benefits..Hillary was calling the shots.'

[Joy Angela]

--A McCain third-party challenge is good for Bush. He'd win the popular vote by about 40-35-25.--

Good?? Bush and Gore were nearly 50/50!!

And in 92, 96 Clinton only won because the Conservative vote was split!!

The Right can't aford to lose precious votes to a STOOGE Third Party set in place by HILLARY RODHAM as a Campaign Strategy!!!

NEVER underestimate HIllary Rodham Clinton. To do so, could be a big mistake and lead to the loss of our freedoms...forever!!!!

[Joy Angela]

http://conservativetruth.org/opinionet/staff/gw3-switalski.shtml

What is the "Third Way" the Clintons always talk about?

The UNION between Socialism and Fascism

And HILLARY likes it that way!!

[NEPA]

Slightly off topic but I was trolling over at DU today (I like to know what the enemy is thinking) and there's a thread about rating Dem pres candidates for '04. Hillary's name is no where mentioned. The favorite is Gov Dean with Kerry a close second.

[Joy Angela]

Is McCain going to be sweet-talked into running THIRD party just like Gore was talked into dropping out of the Democrat Race?

This whole THIRD party scam seems like a THIRD WAY campaign strategy to me.

And we all know how much the Clinton's love the THIRD WAY.

[Joy Angela]

Please post the link to that thread! Thanks!

[GraniteStateConservative]

Yes, Bush and Gore were split at 48% apiece. What that has to do with a McCain third-party challenge in 2004, I'm not sure. You can't draw any conclusions of how a race between the three would turn out other than use logic and do polling. Logic says that any race with an incumbent has two pools of voters: pro-incumbent and anti-incumbent. The incumbent will get all the pro-incumbent voters and the other candidates split up the anti-incumbent voters. McCain and Gore/Edwards/Kerry, etc. would split up the anti-incumbent voters. Polling has also shown that McCain would split up the vote the way I said, about 40-35-25.

Clintoon won in 1992 not because the conservative vote was split (unless you mean that Buchanan lead a revolt against Bush). Clintoon would have won without Perot in the race.

First, he would have won the electoral vote-- only about 30 EVs could have switched in 1992 (not enough for Bush to win). Perot may have cost Bush Montana, North Carolina, Colorado and Georgia, but it's also likely that Perot cost Clintoon Florida and Arizona. That's a net 5 EVs.

The only state in 1996 that Perot could have cost Dole was Nevada-- which was insignificant in Clintoon's EV landslide.

All exit polling showed that Perot voters in 1992 split about equally between Bush and Clintoon-- but Clintoon's lead over Bush was very high and so releasing these voters to vote for either Bush or Clintoon wouldn't have changed the outcome. In fact, Clintoon failed to win a majority of the popular vote in 1996 because of Perot-- and probably in 1992, too. Clintoon wasn't vulnerable in 1996 to losing the presidency. A different candidate may have been able to make the race closer, but he'd have still won.

The Bush voters from 1988 that abandoned Bush in 1992 (blue-collar Reagan Democrats) had abandoned him, period. It didn't matter whether Perot ran or not. They would have either voted for Clintoon or stayed home. They wouldn't have suddenly joined the pro-incumbent voter pool.

The big key to remember here is the electoral college. Clintoon was twice-elected and would have been twice-elected under different candidate circumstances because of the electoral college. He won most all the big states in both 1992 and 1996, making it easy to pick up a few more states to have a narrow victory. Of course, his EV victory was much bigger, but all he needed was a bare majority victory and he would have easily gotten that.

[Joy Angela]

If McCain runs Third Party, it will be at the urging of Hillary Clinton.

I do not support a third party because it just defeats the GOP.

The DEMOCRATS are EVIL at this point in our History, and we can't take the chance.

[timestax]

If McCain runs Third Party, it will be at the urging of Hillary Clinton. I do not support a third party because it just defeats the GOP. The DEMOCRATS are EVIL at this point in our History, and we can't take the chance. 187 posted on 01/13/2003 5:45 PM PST by Joy Angela [ Post Reply

DITTO !!!!!

[timestax]

bump

[timestax]

bump for newbies to see

[timestax]

bump

[timestax]

bump

[Osage Orange]

You wrote:

"I honestly think the Clintons have made a deal with the Devil. How else can you explain their ascendency?"

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

While I loathe the thought of it....I think the sheeple in this country would elect SickSlick Rodham POTUS.

Deal with the devil or not.......Nothing that these two do...will surprise me.

FRegards,

[timestax]

While I loathe the thought of it....I think the sheeple in this country would elect SickSlick Rodham POTUS. Deal with the devil or not.......Nothing that these two do...will surprise me.

NO doubt..they would vote for her!!

[timestax]

No doubt!

[timestax]

bump to the top for the newbies to peruse and think about

[timestax]

bump

[Monty22]

Hillary's going up the ladder, quickly. To dismiss her is insane at this point.

[timestax]

bttt

[timestax]

bump to the top for newbies to read