Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 6/29/2002 10:14:33 PM EDT
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/6/15/102910.shtml[/url]
I predict that this decade Hillary Clinton will be the Democratic Party nominee for president. While she may run in 2004, the likelihood is that she will make her bid in 2008. Hillary begins with several playing field advantages. First, she enters the Democratic primaries with the solid support of blacks and feminists and strong backing from Hispanics and liberals. In the Democratic Party, it is difficult to miss with that combination. Another advantage she'll have is that in 2008 there will be a Republican primary at the same time as the Democratic contests. With Bush likely to be re-elected in 2004, 2008 will see strong contests for the nominations in both parties. Why should this matter? Because it means that the Independent voters will be divided between the two party primaries, just as they were in 2000. If neither Bradley nor McCain had run and the Independents could have concentrated in either party's primary, neither Gore nor Bush would have been nominated. It was only because the Independent vote was divided that the favorite of the party's orthodox wing won in each case. In 2008, they will be divided again, giving Hillary a strong edge. And the general election? Don't count her out. Most presidents run out of gas in their second terms. Count 'em – none have succeeded since Teddy Roosevelt. Woodrow Wilson? The League of Nations dragged him down. FDR? Court packing cost him any power he held over Congress in his second term, he couldn't get anything passed. Truman? Korea made him impotent politically. Eisenhower? Two recessions drained him of power and led to a huge off-year Democratic win in 1958. LBJ? Vietnam. Nixon? Watergate. Reagan? Iran-Contra. He lost the Senate in 1988. Clinton? Impeachment. History shows that second terms just don't work. By Bush's second term, the war on terror will be running on fumes as the U.S. will have ousted Saddam, conquered al-Qaeda and, for the moment, neutralized the domestic threat. Bush doesn't really have a domestic agenda other than his tax cuts. So look for Bush to run out of momentum as 2008 nears. All of these factors favor Hillary for a 2008 presidential run. At that time she will present an activist, if liberal, alternative – one that will be welcomed by the Democratic Party.
View Quote
What scares me about the whore running is that she'll get a bunch of stupid womenz to vote for her just because they'd like to se a female president.
Link Posted: 6/29/2002 10:16:30 PM EDT
I can't think of a single man who would toss in his vote for hilary, not even if he is a die hard democrat. Bush will run again and clean up. Just my prediction. Keving67
Link Posted: 6/29/2002 10:29:49 PM EDT
talk about the S hitting TF!
Link Posted: 6/29/2002 11:18:11 PM EDT
Something must be done.
Link Posted: 6/29/2002 11:22:27 PM EDT
My prediction: After 8 years (yes, GW will probably be re-elected), the "Clintonistas" will be mostly out of Government service. The non-elected officials in DC are still primarily Democrat appointees or coat-tail hangers from the Clinton Years. In 2007, Hillary won't have that nice buffer zone of people to protect her that she had when Slick Willy was in the Oval Office. A lot of the Dirt that got covered up will come out--many of the "Friends of Billary" will have been indicted for other problems, and eventually, one or more will sell her out. I hope the Republicans have enough sense to keep some of this stuff under wraps until June/July/August of 2007, rather than letting it hit the media now, and become a non-event around election time. AFARR PS--a crystal ball prediction: Look for Hillary to develop "Breast Cancer" or something similar about a year before the election in order to get the sympathy vote.
Link Posted: 6/29/2002 11:33:00 PM EDT
What are you talking about? You dont understand democrats. They slavishly love not just the Clintons, but Al Gore. AL GORE! Does any human being actually like that man aside from his immediate family? Still Al Gore rates their undying devotion. That freak came within a frog's hair of beating Bush, who is not exactly an ideal candidate either. Now compare the serious devotion to Al Gore in a rematch against W, and cube it. That will be the support democrats will have for Hillary. Hillary is like Joan of freaking Arc to the Democrats. If it wasn't for the fact Hillary isn't an inspiring leader or effective politician, I think she could run and win in '04. Doesn't matter, because she's an ICON. People impress their hopes and desires on her, even though she's a very unpleasant and un-American person. People couldn't see what a phoney sleaze her husband was, they wont be able to see how Hillary is either. I think she's a shoe-in, personally.
Link Posted: 6/30/2002 1:30:39 AM EDT
By 2008 Hilary will be too fat to fit through the oval office doors. That will disqualify her from running.
Link Posted: 6/30/2002 3:16:10 AM EDT
Link Posted: 6/30/2002 4:11:05 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/30/2002 4:12:58 AM EDT by raf]
Link Posted: 6/30/2002 4:13:46 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Sweep: Don't bet on Bush being re-elected so quickly. From what I've seen even some Republicans are starting to crtitize him.
View Quote
[url]http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/06/29/poll.pledge/index.html[/url] [b]"Also in the poll, President Bush's approval rating stood at 70 percent, with just 19 percent saying they disapprove of his performance. In the last poll in May, those figures were 73 percent and 20 percent, respectively.[/b] 70% approval rating ain't too damn bad.
Link Posted: 6/30/2002 4:27:27 AM EDT
I too believe Hitlery will run in 2008 and will attempt to gather the same coalition that elected Slick W.. Namely unions, Hollywood, soccer broads and Americans of African ancestry. I do not believe the Hispanics are yet firmly in the Dimocrat camp and may be the deciding factor is the 2008 election.
Link Posted: 6/30/2002 6:05:34 AM EDT
Originally Posted By raf: . . Her Senate career, . .unless and until the Libs control the Senate. . . .
View Quote
I believe the Dems do control the US senate. OT:[in my best slurred speech and unabe to stand body language] "I'll vote for the that dame!"
Link Posted: 6/30/2002 6:55:37 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/30/2002 7:00:06 AM EDT by raf]
Link Posted: 6/30/2002 7:07:37 AM EDT
Originally Posted By raf:
Originally Posted By warlord:
Originally Posted By raf: . . Her Senate career, . .unless and until the Libs control the Senate. . . .
View Quote
I believe the Dems do control the US senate. OT:[in my best slurred speech and unabe to stand body language] "I'll vote for the that dame!"
View Quote
You're correct, Warlord. However, Dems are not necessarily synonymous with [i]Libs[/i], just as Repubs are not necessarily Conservatives. There are enough Conservatives of both parties in the Senate at the moment to prevent the Libs from running amok, IMHO. Of course, currently the President and the House serve as a brake on any nonsense passed by the Senate. Now, if we are so unfortunate to get a [i]Lib[/i] President and both houses of Congress... IIRC, the 1994 AW Ban was passed under such circumstances.
View Quote
Funny the Senate was suppose to keep a check on the House because the Senate has 6 year terms, and the House has 2 year terms.
Link Posted: 6/30/2002 7:12:15 AM EDT
Link Posted: 6/30/2002 7:19:45 AM EDT
This is what I think will happen. VP Cheney (sp?) will not run again for the office of Vice-President in 2004. Bush will pick Colin Powell to be his running mate. What do you think will be his chances of being reelected then? Vulcan94
Link Posted: 6/30/2002 7:30:22 AM EDT
Top Top