Posted on 11/29/2004 10:17:25 AM PST by carola
This morning on WMAL radio I heard someone, I believe it was Richard Leiby of the Washington Post Reliable Source column, say that Hillary Clinton has decided that she is too polarizing a person to win the presidency in 2008, so she will concentrate on raising money with the purpose of winning back the Senate for the Democrats.
This is a crock, and I don't think even he believed it because he commented on how much she has moved to the center and is cooperating with Republicans. If she had no designs on the presidency in 2008, she would be moving way to the left of Kennedy and Kerry as fast as her little legs would carry her. This is a typical Hillary lie which she thinks will calm anti-Hillary passions while she raises money and make plans for her inauguration in 2009.
I think I can safely say that if Kerry does decide to run again, watch for that Whoopi Goldberg tape to come out, where Kerry is fawning all over her comments like a starstruck 15-year old groupie.
I think Hitlery can beat both of these guys, so we better come up with better choices than these.
Absolutely right!
Insults? My fellow Freeper, you have yet to learn the definition.
"Just a phrase"? I think words have meaning, you?
As for the rest of your dribble, I'll take a pass.
Once a liar, always a liar.
Again, it depends on what our country is up against at the time, but I tend to agree with you.
I bow to your astuteness.
I could have prevented many slings and arrows aimed my way should I have had the intellect to state that. ;)
Regards
> think words have meaning, you?
Okay, next time I will state it:
This will, IMO, lead us to defeat.
>Insults? My fellow Freeper, you have yet to learn the definition.
Again, okay. I'll accept that.
>As for the rest of your dribble, I'll take a pass.
Yet again, okay. I'll do the same. :^)
Thanks for the input.
That Must be why Ann Lewis was just Hired.....
Ah, but then she loses much of the Hispanic block.
It's a tough choice...
What advantage does Hitlary have over Mcain or Powell, and even Frist?
NONE.
She would have women excited, however, the folks in RED STATES have shown that even after 1 year of bad media and every dirty trick thrown at them, Libs could NOT fake them out.
They know Hitlary represents what they abhor and she is at least 100 times further into those values than F'ing ever was.
Add to that her history of corruption that EVERYONE is aware of and has NOT forgotten.
Mcain has been raised to iconic levels by Media (even though their goal is to use him to hurt GOP). However, they would look like even bigger hyporcties if they try to bring him down.
Mcain or Powell or Frist would NOT lose to Hitlary.
Well....since you put it that way, I hope she runs too....hahaha
The big question is, if the candidate, whoever they are, has the gonads to attack her on these issues. Her being a woman, "new tone", yadda yadda yadda, this may not happen.
This is what I learned in this election cycle:
People on OUR side are SMARTER than MEDIA
There is NO doubt that W's likeability plays a huge role in his victory.
However if you notice, he is still an 'average' candidate at his best.
Also note that he has NEVER, and I repeat NEVER utterred a mean/bad word against Democrap, and against either Gor or F'ing. He NEVER has had to resort to personal attacks and bring his opponents down at personal level.
The next Pub Candidate, SHOULD learn that lesson: Your OWN Personal character puts your opponent's character in proper contrast and you don't have to say a thing.
Nobody has forgotten the corruption and the 'liberal values' of Klintonista.
If Iraq-War goes well, the chances are next election would be more focused on domestic issues.
Hitlary and Democraps would return to mantra of Republicans are Racist, Sexist, Selfish and Mean.
If we have Mcain or Powell or Frist as our nominee, and if they stay on 'Compassionate Conservative' message, WE HAVE NOTHING TO WORRY ABOUT.
There seems to be this idea that Hillary is this formidable giant that we should fear. I don't buy it. Just because Bill Clinton beat us twice doesn't mean Hillary can or will do the same. Just watch their convention speeches back to back and you'll see how different these two are. Bill talks like a centrist. Hillary, like a leftist. Bill is charming. Hillary, shrill. Bill attracts red staters with his working class roots and common-man talk. Hillary turns off red staters with her arrogance and aloof demeanor. In other words, the only thing she has in common with the Clinton that won the WH twice is her last name.
Hillary would go down bigtime to any halfway decent Republican. The only ones who can elect Hillary are us! That's right, if we decide to engage in a major intraparty war over our nominee, getting all disgruntled because they're not from our region of the country or they're not of a particular faith or whatever, we're setting the stage for the only two scenarios by which Hillary can win: low GOP turnout and/or a third party candidate that hurts Republicans. That means we have to support our nominee once he's selected AND we have to be careful when picking him not to go too far to the poles of the GOP (i.e., no Tancredos, no RINOS). The ideal candidate is someone right in the middle of the Republican spectrum.
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.