Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: zencat
Clark's ...campaign is stillborn.

Clark was never intended as the main candidate, but rather as a stalking horse for clinton. Clark, being a decorated Army general, can sour the American people on the war on terror and plant doubts in people's minds about Bush's competence, while the media plants doubts about his honesty. Drive those poll numbers down, and clinton can jump in as the pres or VP candidate.

11 posted on 09/20/2003 10:24:21 AM PDT by Jeff Chandler (This tagline has been suspended or banned.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies ]


To: Jeff Chandler
The bottom line is that Bush has not dipped below 50% at any time during his presidency.

I am not a historian, but is this not the first time ever that a president has maintained this ongoing favorable rating. I know other presidents including the pervert in chief had ratings below 40% at some time during their presidency.

However, the media makes it sound as if the people hate this president. So why are we not "marketing" his numbers better?

So --- I say GREAT JOB MR. PRESIDENT!!
12 posted on 09/20/2003 10:35:31 AM PDT by One Sided Media (Go Bush!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies ]

To: Jeff Chandler
I think Clark's role is to diminish the other Democratic candidates, and Hillary and Bill's continued teasing about whether or not she's running is part of it too.

Hillary knows that Bush is probably going to win next year, and she can't let any other Democrat become the undisputed leader of the party. Their 2004 candidate has to go down in flames. So Dean must be weakened now, and not allowed to continue his momentum, and note that if Kerry was the frontrunner, as he should have been, Clark would overshadow him too.

But if something bad happens for Bush, and reelection is unlikely, then Hillary can slide in with Clark, or dump him with some timely information about Waco or Kosovo or something.

As far as something bad happening that is bad for Bush's chances in 2004, the economy is improving and it would take something bigger than 9/11 to really damage it. And while that wouldn't be good for Bush, he would probably get a patriotism surge that would counter the bad economy.

And which Democrat would do better at protecting the country? The people know - none of them.

Not even Clark, with his wishy-washedness on the Iraq war vote.

So Clark is Hillary's puppet, but she's still thinking about 2008, I think.


18 posted on 09/20/2003 11:00:52 AM PDT by michaelt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson