'Plan Hillary'

Pittsburgh Tribune-Review ^ | 2/2/02 | Dateline D.C.

[doug from upland]

This is her scenario about which I have been talking for a long time.

[Sequoya]

I disagree that Hillary will ever take the chance of running for the VP spot. VP candidates who lose never get the top spot or even the nomination for the top job. The loss finishes them in national politics.

Look for Hillary to take her shot in 2004 or 2008 depending on her reading of her chances. My guess is she will wait for 2008 because she can’t out politic Bush.

But, I guess we will see what she will actually do, soon enough

[Aarchaeus]

but she could never win a general election.

Don't bet on it. That son of a b!tch she's married to won one. And there are a lot of fools around who still think they are both great leaders.

[Texas Eagle]

What a bunch of scaredy-cats. The rest of the United States is nowhere near as Liberal as New York.

Nobody knew just how scummy the Clintons would be when they ran in 92. Now EVERYBODY knows how scummy they are.

The only sure way to get rid of her is to relegate her to the ash heap of history by having her get stomped in a Presidential election.

I say bring it on.

[esopman]

You are correct. Historical, conventional VP candidates can't afford to lose. However, we are not dealing here with anything approaching conventional. Hillary Regina is every Manchurian, Communist, maniacally megalomanic candidate rolled into one.

She will run. Right now, she is standing back taking potshots at any Dim whose head extends above the pack. Gore's departure was partially a recognition of that and his lack of stomach for the fight. The NY slimes articles with their backhanded compliments of Al prior to his exit were, I think, in part a product of the Ickes + McAuliffe + Carville + Clinton machinery. If such speculation is even close, a litmus test of HR's backroom machinations will be the type of articles published by the NYS on leading Democratic candidates over the next year and a half.

I also agree that she cannot out politic Bush. Still, she is prepared to unleash any dog in her lunge for power. Again, we should see the flood of propaganda starting over the next year.

Bottom line, I think oh-eight is too-late for her highness. VPOTUS may not be immediately gratifying, but it is a mere heartbeat away from the prize...

[Freedom'sWorthIt]

Oh my!

[Freedom'sWorthIt]

Yes you have. The battle goes on. Of course my scenario is that she will run as VP behind Johnny pretty Boy Edwards - thinking he can be Slick II and win - with her as the "seasoned" (but not as attractive) VP at his side. Then once in power - poor Johnny has an Vince Fostercide! Wonder if there is anybody in the Dems circle who is wise enought to warn John-boy not to play games with the beast?

[Howlin]

Well, it seems we're going to have arm wrestle for THIS title. :-)

[waterstraat]

The last time the republicans got more votes than the democrats, was in 1988, 15 years ago. 2000 was a fluke, you cant expect to win the electoral vote when you keep losing the popular vote.

[KLT]

Please Howlin we need you...you are welcome anytime...my home is your home....

Best FreeGards From The Socialist Republic of CLINTOOON YAWK,

Karen

[NYC GOP Chick]

I do too!

The Hillary Watch

[waterstraat]

Hillary is popular with democrats. Hillary is positioning herself in front of a massive increase in future democrat voters. Hillary is very popular with blacks, asian immigrants, and latin, who are becoming the most powerful voting blocks in our country. The fact is, that most people vote democrat, and as blacks, asians, and latins increase in population, republicans will become a smaller and smaller minority.

Hillary can see the trend in future voting patterns, and in our changing demographics in this country. It has been 18 years since a republican has won more votes than a democrat, and hillary knows it.

2000 election: Gore 51,003,238 votes, Bush 50,459,624 votes

1996 election: clinton 47,402,357 votes, Dole 39,198,755

1992 election: clinton 44,909,806 votes, bush 39,104,550

It has been 18 years since any republican has received more votes than a democrat. It has been 18 years since more americans wanted a republican as president.

It was a fluke that Bush is president, since winning the electoral vote while losing the popular vote is quite rare. Minority presidents are an oddity, not the norm.

Only an idiot would think that republicans can keep winning the electoral vote while never again winning the popular vote.

Blacks, new asian immigrants, and latins are the population groups increasing at the fastest rate in america, and they all vote mostly democrat. Over 90% of blacks continue to vote democrat, with no signs of it changing.

Each year that goes by, sees the blacks, asian immigrants, and latins increasing their percentage of our population. In a decade or two, they will soon compose the majority of our nations population and those groups will decide every future election.

Bush's desire to give citizenship to the ten million illegal latins in this country will increase the legal democrat votes for hillary in the next election by additional millions in one pen stroke.

The republicans have not been able to win the majority of blacks, latins, or asians, and have no hopes to get them to vote repulican instead of for hillary.

[waterstraat]

57,000 more legal immigrants come into this country each week. Most of them are urbanized asians, who are politically liberal, anti-gun, and they vote democrat.