Posted on 09/10/2002 9:27:23 AM PDT by SlickWillard
Tuesday, Sept. 10, 2002 12:14 PM EST
Margaret Carlson: Hillary Stabbed Cuomo in the Back for Presidency
NewsMax was the first to report that Hillary Clinton was indeed running for the President.
Now, the idea of a Hillary Clinton candidacy has moved from laughter to accepted reality.
This past weekend, Margaret Carlson, co-host of CNN’s Capital Gang, said on-air that there is no doubt that Hillary is running for the White House.
Carlson, also a TIME magazine columnist, is one of the most connected liberals in Washington.
During the CNN show, Carlson explained why Andrew Cuomo pulled out of the Democratic primary in New York, throwing the race to State Comptroller Carl McCall, an African American.
Carlson said that Hillary’s sudden and unusual endorsement of McCall made Cuomo’s race untenable.
Why did Hillary make the unusual move of making an endorsement when she had previously promised to remain neutral?
Carlson said bluntly, "Hillary's running for president. They [the Clintons] wanted the black vote, and the Clintons just undermined [Cuomo].”
Carlson said Hillary’s endorsement proves the Clintons will stop at nothing to get back into the White House.
She said the Hillary endorsement demonstrated that "the Clintons will stab you in the back.”
Carlson recalled that during the Monica scandal, "The Clintons got [Cuomo’s] support during impeachment. If one Cabinet secretary had gone off during the Monica thing, Clinton would have been in a lot of trouble. Andrew Cuomo stuck by him.”
Cuomo had served as Clinton’s cabinet secretary at HUD.
Carlson complained, "They should have at least, the very least, remained neutral.”
Next, I want to see Carlson get in a hair-pulling contest with Eleanor Clift!
Where have I heard those words before?
She'll never get elected Senator because too many people know her now.
I call Theodore.
http://www.chipmunks.com/bios.htm
2008 will be an open seat race for the President. That means the GOP will have a fractured financial base. the GOP candidates will probably outraise the Dem candidates, but there will be no single $100 million GOP gorilla dominating all the $$. Waiting until 2008 will give her a MUCH better chance at winning.
She will raise as much as she can in her Senate account 'gearing up' for a 2006 Senate re-election campaign, (using money designated for a Senate campaign that 'needs' a nationwide donor base), then she will 'have' to announce in late 2005/early 2006 that the nation 'needs' her. She will spend the rest of 2006 and 2007 using that network paid for by contributions to her 'Senate' campaign raising money to win the Dem primary in early 2008.
More simply put, she gets more bang for her buck if I contribute the max Fed $$ to her Senate campaign, and the campaign uses that for legitimate expenses (paying fundraising consultants, buying direct mail and direct marketing phone lists of donors), then I can also turn around and contribute the max Fed $$ to her presidential campaign.
Hillary! was hardly neutral in the race prior to that point. ANDREW was her hand-picked boy from the very beginning. He was going to ride Ol' Crusty's coat-tails to glory.
It was generally acknowledged by all that the only reason she did not formally endorse ANDREW was out of sensitivity to NY racial politics.
The reason she finally jumped on the McCall bandwagon is because it eventually became clear that there was no way ANDREW could win, even with every bit of voter fraud and back-room gyrations the Clintons could muster. At that point, she had to cut ANDREW loose, because it does her no good to be seen standing next to a loser.
Similarly, the Clintonistas began saying yesterday that they never really supported Reno in Florida. They are just cutting their losses.
The fact is, the Clintons have lost race after race since they left the White House. The last Clintonista to win so much as a primary election was Hillary! herself.
Eventually people will catch on. Hillary!ism is dead. Ol' Crusty just doesn't have coat-tails.
Carlson said bluntly, "Hillary's running for president. They [the Clintons] wanted the black vote, and the Clintons just undermined [Cuomo].”
Yeah, I know it's easy to think that the Clintons were buying black votes for a future election, but it doesn't jive. Think about it; what percentage of the black vote would they have lost in a presidential election (even if you just look at NY) if they simply remain neutral? Maybe one-tenth of one percent. The lib blacks will vote her regardless. But even one tenth of one percent would accept the fact that Hillary was staying neurtral bec of Cumo's having been on BJ's cabinet. Heck, staying neutral in a race that included one of her big political cronies was a DEFACTO endorsement of McCall. No, there's something else going on here. OH, I'm sure it has to do with her presidential ambitions, but there's a LOT more going on behind the scenes.
Yep! Especially on air, on "international cable TV"...so we should all theoretically be getting to know all about the Clintons, but I hope dear Margaret keeps opining!!!
"bump" for the aside, stage-whispered...me too, LOL!
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.