Skip to comments.
Michael Reagan: Hillary Is Running for President Next Year, Not 2008
NewsMax.com ^
| 5/01/03
| Carl Limbacher and NewsMax.com Staff
Posted on 05/01/2003 9:52:03 AM PDT by kattracks
In Sen. Hillary Clintons attack on President Bushs economic policies, comparing him to Herbert Hoover, she was staking out her claim to the Democrats' 2004 presidential nomination, says radio talk show host and nationally syndicated columnist Michael Reagan.
President Ronald Reagans oldest son, a NewsMax Magazine columnist, writes that Hillarys speech at a Democrat function in Connecticut "is a dead giveaway to the fact that shes going after the Democrat presidential nomination next year not in 2008 as all the so-called experts have been predicting."
In his syndicated column released today, Reagan wrote that Hillary looked around "at the carnival of fools now in the running, and recognized just what fools they are. And shes right they are a bunch of fools and none of them has any chance of beating George W. Bush next year."
Reagan based his prediction on two factors that must have been obvious to Hillary:
- She and her husband still control the Democrat party, and therefore control the purse strings, giving her a war chest none of the other candidates can match. (And then there's her remarkable talent for raising money, most of which benefits herself, not her fellow Democrat pols.)
- She and Bill have beaten one Bush before, back in 1992, and she believes they can beat another one in 2004 by using the same issue: Its the economy, stupid.
"What the people in Connecticut saw the other night in her speech was basically the first announcement of her 2004 presidential campaign," Reagan wrote.
Read more on this subject in related Hot Topics:
DNC
Sen. Hillary Clinton
TOPICS: Front Page News; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: 2004; clinton; corrupt; liar; sinatorclinton
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 101 next last
To: kcvl
One of the symptoms of prescribed Prozac is a puffyness. I'm series . . .
41
posted on
05/01/2003 10:25:07 AM PDT
by
w_over_w
(Hodge podge for $50.00 . . . DING! DING! . . . The Daily Double!)
To: Doctor Stochastic
Hillary Clinton's ability to campaign depends largely on the lamestream media constantly giving her a pass.
That and the fact that hillary! wiil not appear on any political shows, or anywhere else for that matter, unless she has full knowledge of the questions and knows there will be nothing but softballs thrown her way.
She got away with this crap in NY, but I don't think she'll be able to swing it in a national election.
To: areafiftyone
She better get that splinter out of her butt That would be a broomstick.
43
posted on
05/01/2003 10:27:09 AM PDT
by
SGCOS
To: rontorr
Scary? Not really. If Osama, Al-Qaeda, Saddam, Chirac, Gore and all the other nuts, kooks, and underestimators could not bring W down, I can't imagine Hildebeast doing it. In fact, a nice 60% 35% (5% for kook candidates) stomping of Hillary Rodham would put the final stake in the heart of the clinton era. She can do far more damage as a long term Kennedy clone senator so I hope she does run for prez and get it over with and join Gore in last centuries ideas morgue. (Bridge back to the twentieth century theme for campaign)
To: Diverdogz
"But, what about accepting the vice-president-running-mate position? It could happen: Kerry-Clinton or Graham-Clinton." I don't think so. Kerry, Graham and the others may be democrats, but they're not suicidal.
Hil-liar-y's goal is the presidency. And these guys KNOW what happens to people that get between XXXlinton's and their goal.
45
posted on
05/01/2003 10:28:17 AM PDT
by
KeyBored
(Hillary - she couldn't find billing records, but she knows where your paystub is)
To: kattracks
Dunno. Certainly there's an opportunity in the current leadership vacuum in the Democratic party. Funding will be a big issue - if we see the Bill 'n' Terry show cranking up we'll know that they're going to make the push.
To: PatrickHenry
Her husband ran against Bush the Elder when it seemed impossible to beat him.
Yeah, but can Hillary play the saxophone? (Gotta be a decent saxophone player to become President.) Or more importantly, can she persuade Brittany Spears (or whoever is the diva of the moment) to parade around on M-TV wearing nothing but a push up bra and the American flag, convincing the nations youth to rock the vote?
47
posted on
05/01/2003 10:29:11 AM PDT
by
neefer
To: SGCOS
ROFLMAO!! Her butt is big enough!!
48
posted on
05/01/2003 10:29:12 AM PDT
by
areafiftyone
(The U.N. needs a good Flush!)
To: Diverdogz
Let this woman run.. Put her in the bright lights...
Make her debate... Watch her react... See her Explode...
It will expose, astound and entertain all who have been dumbfounded with her years of arrogant pomposity..
49
posted on
05/01/2003 10:29:47 AM PDT
by
Broker
To: kattracks
Hell, that's why she murdered Paul Wellstone. She will run and will lie about being a centrist. With Paul gone, there will be no one to point out that she still is an ultra-left wing extremist. The NYT, CNN or the old media will get right in line and call her a centrist. Only Paul would have provided the contrast to accurately define her positions and he has been dispatched.
50
posted on
05/01/2003 10:30:24 AM PDT
by
Tacis
To: kattracks
The country as a whole is not ready to have a president who is also an
angry lecturing FemiNazi Dyke Socialist. The country is not ready for a woman president whose husband is a impeached malignant narcissist and serial rapist/harasser/abuser.
The country is not ready for a president whose shrill voice is absolutely intolerable to the normal human ear (but especially to the male human ear).
Hillary! has her loyal fan club for sure--she would do fine among the looney left 25% of voters (you know, the "Bush-Stole-the-Election-and-give-me-more-government-handouts" crowd).
Other than that, Hillary! doesn't stand a snowball's chance in H*ll against Bush. I think she knows this, and is just warming up for 2008.
To: RooRoobird14
Hillary! will do anything, and I mean ANYTHING, to win.
52
posted on
05/01/2003 10:33:43 AM PDT
by
Grand Old Partisan
(You can read about my history of the GOP at www.republicanbasics.com)
To: mallardx
I respect your perspective and would like nothing more than to see it become a reality. However, factor in an utterly biased media that WILL NOT report anything corrupt about this woman's past but WILL dwell on any negatives about the '08 Republican candidate. Also, Americans tend to get complacent when things seem cozy with the Economy/National Security/et al. It's that independent/undecided voter plus all the new voters between now and '08 that can be exploited by a media backed Hitlary. Dick Morris made the observation that the one person that could overcome this slant would be Colin Powell. Your move . . .
BTW, I love hunting waterfowl in the flooded rice fields of Sealy, TX. Best place to get "speckled bellies".
53
posted on
05/01/2003 10:35:26 AM PDT
by
w_over_w
(Hodge podge for $50.00 . . . DING! DING! . . . The Daily Double!)
To: kattracks
I'm not saying she can't win, but 9/11 changed everything for us and THEM!
And you can't tell me that lurking in the back of most peoples mind isn't the idea that '92-'00 paved the way for 9/11, because the spectacle of death has a way of 'concentrating the mind'.
54
posted on
05/01/2003 10:35:48 AM PDT
by
AlbionGirl
(A kite flies highest against the wind, not with it. - Winston Churchill)
To: twigs
I think she's positioning herself in case there is an opening. A year is a long time in politics. Plus we cannot put it past her and hubby to try and engineer something--a disaster--to propell her into the spotlight. I think you're right. She hasn't committed to running, but she has put herself in a position to run if it's practical. Her vote for the war was in the same vein, jockeying for position--not in the Dimocratic Party, but for the 2004 election, if necessary. She will try to portray herself as moderate/centrist, just as the Clintons did in 1992.
To: kattracks
Hillary! will run in 2004, but she does not intend to win in 2004. Her one and only goal is 2004 will be rehabilitation.
If Hillary! wants to be President (and you know she does), she has to find some way of dealing with her negatives. The stench of dead bodies and the paper trail on shady dealing is just too much for even the round-heeled press to ignore. So what is she do to?
I look at the 2004 for run as a national version of Hillary!'s highly successful NY State "Listening Campaign" of early 2000. She will fly around the country getting her face on TV and saying not much of anything. The Republicans will go absolutely foaming-at-the-mouth stark, raving nuts about her canidacy. They really have no choice. But through it all, expect her to just smile sweetly and keep saying that she really has no idea what "those people" are so upset about.
The press will pick up on the stories about Whitewater and the various scandals, and Hillary! will suffer at the polls. She will make no attempt to refute the accusations and will remain silent about every scandal. Expect her to go down to defeat, carrying California, Mass., NY and little else.
Then, in 2008, Hillary! can run for real! Expect her to dismiss all accusations and scandals as "old news", saying "We dealt with that is 2004", even though she had never even commented on them in the previous campaign. The press will let her slide.
The plus side is that 2004 will be a absolute disaster for the Dems, resulting in big gains for the Republicans in the House and Senate. Dubya might even get 60 reliable votes in the Senate, eliminating all of this Fillibuster nonsense. The down side is, by 2008, Hillary! will be tanned, rested and ready, the Media Flying Wedge will be fully operational, and the strategy might actually work.
56
posted on
05/01/2003 10:45:09 AM PDT
by
gridlock
(And you heard it here first.)
To: kattracks
I heard on the radio today that Bill described Chelsea as
"having his gift for gab, and Hillary's morals".
There's a frightening thought. Sounds like the offspring of Jaws.
57
posted on
05/01/2003 10:45:29 AM PDT
by
theDentist
(So. This is Virginia.... where are all the virgins?)
To: w_over_w
Good to look at history for precedents; however, it's also good to change history!
I believe the times are different...after 40 plus years of liberal control, the country is in for at least 40 of conservative policies.
Not saying a Democrat won't be elected in times to come, but the Clinton machine is outmoded and outdated. They don't know it yet, but they are starting to panic, which is why I think she'll run early....in '04.
To: areafiftyone
I swear that if this skank get's whipped by Al Sharpton in the Primarys...I'll die laughing. Literally.
59
posted on
05/01/2003 10:49:06 AM PDT
by
Dead Dog
To: kattracks
I think this is missing the real motivation. She's the junior Senator of her state for a party that is in the minority and looks to remain in the minority for at least the next election cycle, if not longer. She's a nobody, except for the office her husband held, with no power. No, she needs power. Needs it bad. Needs it now.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 101 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson