Replies

As my good friend said to me via e-mail when I was having the same doubts as you appear to have:

"Hillary Clinton is utterly unelectable as president. There is literally no scenario in which this shrew can win the presidency. The electoral college prohibits it. There is simply zero chance of gaining the 270 electoral votes required.

Count up the states where she even has a tiny chance of winning and see if it adds to 270. It won't.

It should be noted that Hitlery did NOT run for the senate in either of her "home" states of Michigan or Arkansas. There were only a very small number of states that she could run for senate in and have a shot at winning. New York, Massachusetts, California and maybe Connecticut, New Jersey, Vermont, Maryland or Delaware.

Even if she won all the above states in a presidential contest, she loses 399-139. And that's being very, very optimistic.

It should also be noted that she won the senate seat in New York only because there was no credible opposition (given that Rudy Guliani dropped out.) Who was that guy that ran against her, Rick Lazio or something like that? What a joke. If Rudy had stayed in the race, he would have cleaned her clock. I hope he runs against her (for the Senate) this year just so we can get her out of the limelight. Not that it matters much to me, because she'll never be president. Never!"

Makes perfect sense to me. The Clintons have friends...but they don't have enough friends in states other than those listed above, to do more damage to our country.

And remember, President Clinton did NOT win by any "landslide." Were it not for Perot taking away moderate votes, he wouldn't have been President, either.

Diane:

I agree with you statements BUT I think we tend to "project" our political tastes when it comes to the Clinton's.
Of course Right Minded people would NEVER vote for her... but we were saying the same thing in 2004 - how could ANYONE for for Scary John Kerry? Almost 1/2 the voters did!
The Clintons strategy will be to split the Republican vote, just like Bill was able to do so using Perot. Do a Google search on Clinton and Perot - I think Newsmax or World Net Daily did a story on how Clinton security detail have come forward to claim that Ross Perot was a visitor to the Arkansas Gov. Mansion prior to the campaign between Bush I and Clinton. Perot hated Bush I. And Perot (In my opinion) was working with Clinton to split the Republican vote.
I have a gut feeling that this same strategy is in the works for 2008.
Who would be able to split the Republican vote????
How about IF McCain is kicked to the curb early on. I don't put it past him to be a spoiler. Many middle of the road people would vote for him.
How about Colin Powell? This move by the Army Generals against Rumsfield is getting more and more suspicious - Rush has been pointing out some interesting things going on behind the scenes.
This is just speculation on these two candidates.

What happens IF this immigration fiasco is raging near 2008 and a Conservative spins off as a 3rd party to shut down the boarder 100% and play hard ball with the boarder? LOTS of conservatives (including me) might take a hard look at that candidate (Tancreto (sp?))

I agree the Electoral Math is not there... but if the math included Division she could win... just like slick willy.

Here is what I was speaking of about Perot and Clinton:

Washington--During two contested presidential elections, Ross Perot presented himself as an independent maverick who disdained the idea of Bill Clinton, the one-time Arkansas governor, holding the Oval Office.

"Electing Bill Clinton president is like making the manager of a Wal-Mart store President of the United States,” Perot exclaimed during the 1992 presidential debate.

In the 1996 race Perot’s comments about Clinton were more honed and nasty. Perot suggested that Bill Clinton was too corrupt to serve as president, and said he couldn’t even be trusted to babysit one’s children.

Perot’s on-again and off-again comments about Bill Clinton don’t seem to square for retired Arkansas State Trooper Larry Patterson.

Patterson offers new insight into Bill Clinton’s relationship with the billionaire Dallas businessman in More than Sex: the Secrets of Bill & Hillary Clinton Revealed! - A two-hour audiocassette tape set published by NewsMax.com.

In More than Sex, Patterson explodes the myth that Perot and Clinton were political foes. Patterson says, in fact, Clinton and Perot had been long-time friends well before the 1992 campaign. Patterson said the two had numerous meetings and calls over a period of several years. This relationship continued well into the 1992 presidential campaign, the trooper said.

Patterson reports that on numerous occasions the two met in Dallas when Bill Clinton traveled through the city while transiting to or from Little Rock. The pair usually had lunch or dinner together. Clinton would also meet with Perot’s son, Ross Jr.

During this period before the 1992 campaign, Patterson explained that he really didn’t know who Perot was other than Clinton’s description of him as a wealthy individual who was politically connected.

Perot became a national celebrity after appearing on the Larry King Show in early 1992, declaring his intention to run as a third party candidate.

Patterson said when he learned of Perot’s decision to enter the 1992 race, he was surprised.

"It seems strange to me that Mr. Perot and Bill Clinton has this close relationship and that they’re running for the same office. Yes, that strikes me quite strange,” Patterson said.

Perot abruptly withdrew from the race by the summer of 1992 during the Democratic convention, saying publicly that the Democratic party had been revitalized.

Patterson reveals that after winning the Democratic convention in New York that summer, contacts between Clinton and Perot increased dramatically.

"Up until [Bill Clinton] was elected, we still made all his telephone calls, received all incoming calls to the mansion,” Patterson said.

Patterson estimates their were as many as a dozen calls between the two during the period after Perot had withdrawn from the race.

By October, Perot had changed his mind and again decided to enter the presidential race.

Republicans have criticized Perot, believing that his conservative platform appealed to potential Republican and swing voters and effectively gave the election to Bill Clinton. Critics of Perot have also noted that his criticisms of Clinton usually surface only around election time, and have effectively divided the anti-Clinton vote.

Bill Clinton won the presidency in 1992 and 1996. In neither case did he win a majority of votes cast, receiving only 43 percent of the vote in ’92 and 49 percent in ’96.

Patterson has no idea what transpired between Clinton and Perot during their meetings and calls. Still, he thinks the relationship between the two deserves more scrutiny.