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

To: SlickWillard
Why did Hillary make the unusual move of making an endorsement when she had previously promised to remain neutral?

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.

66 posted on 09/10/2002 10:53:29 AM PDT by gridlock
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: gridlock
Hmmmmm. See my post #67. I think we're on the same track. What you say makes sense -- and is a much greater stab in the back than simply going from neutral to McCall supporter.
71 posted on 09/10/2002 10:57:35 AM PDT by Lee'sGhost
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies ]

To: gridlock
Standing next to a loser? Then what's she doing with Bill????
81 posted on 09/10/2002 11:03:57 AM PDT by Marysecretary
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies ]

To: gridlock
Standing next to a loser? Then what's she doing with Bill????
82 posted on 09/10/2002 11:03:57 AM PDT by Marysecretary
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies ]

To: gridlock
"...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."

Exactly, my FRiend...the alleged Clintonista Juggernaut continues to IMPLODE before our eyes!!

FReegards...MUD

91 posted on 09/10/2002 11:13:55 AM PDT by Mudboy Slim
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies ]

To: gridlock
"...Ol' Crusty just doesn't have coat-tails."

Very good observation and politically true. Now let's see how McCall does against Pataki.

106 posted on 09/10/2002 11:35:57 AM PDT by sultan88
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies ]

To: gridlock; Mudboy Slim; Landru; ForGod'sSake
"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."

A true statement until last night when Erskine Bowles won the Democratic Primary in North Carolina.

And speaking of last night's primary and the Clinton's "back-stabbing", what is y'all's take on the last-minute withdrawal of Clinton support for Janet Reno in Florida? As was discussed on one of the election threads, the Clintons obviously felt that McBride was going to beat ole Bigfoot so they climbed aboard what looked like the winning team. But...they never counted on the race being so close and Reno threatening to go to court over the apparent "irregularities."

Now here is where it gets interesting per that thread. Reno knows where the bodies are buried. And the Clintons just dumped on Reno. I would feel very shaky, about now, to be standing in Reno's boots.

164 posted on 09/11/2002 5:18:42 PM PDT by sultan88
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | 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