Hillary is running
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: November 3, 2003
1:00 a.m. Eastern
© 2003 WorldNetDaily.com
I'm going to go way out on a limb today and predict with nearly 100 percent certainty that Hillary Clinton will seek and win the Democratic Party nomination for the presidency in 2004.
I know others have speculated about this.
I'm not speculating. I'm forecasting. I'm prophesying. If I were a betting man, I would be placing the farm on it.
Why am I so sure?
The latest polls bear out what others before them show – the nomination is hers for the asking.
The most recent survey, conducted by Quinnipiac University, shows Clinton getting 43 percent of the vote if she enters the race against the remaining nine Democratic dwarfs. She polls higher than Wesley Clark, Joe Lieberman, Richard Gephardt, John Kerry and Howard Dean combined.
In other words, this would not be a contest if Hillary entered the picture.
That alone must be a very tempting prospect for someone as ambitious as Hillary Rodham.
How many politicians would not seize an opportunity like that?
I don't think she can resist – which explains the way she's talking recently.
She's getting vitriolic against President Bush. She's going ******. She's going ballistic. She's even more shrill than usual.
Last week, just before her high holy day of Halloween, she said "the pillars of democracy are shaking" due to Bush's need to avoid "political embarrassment" over the Sept. 11 terror attacks and the Iraq war.
It was her sharpest attack yet on the president's handling of foreign policy. Clinton suggested Bush was trying to hide troop casualty figures and was using national security as a cover for failures. She said the White House's refusal to hand over documents to the commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks "unnecessarily raises suspicions that it has something to hide."
"We must always be vigilant against letting our desire to keep information confidential be used as a pretext for classifying information that is more about political embarrassment," she added for good measure.
I guess she wants an open administration like the one her husband ran.
Clinton said Bush's foreign policy has been marked by an "aggressive unilateralism."
"We now go to war as a first resort against perceived threats, not as a necessary final resort," she said.
But there's one clincher for me. There's one fact that persuades me more than any other that she is running. And that is her consistent denials.
Hillary doesn't know the truth. It is as much a stranger to the junior senator from New York as sunlight is to a vampire.
And, from a practical standpoint, she's still got time. She will need to declare her candidacy soon – this month, in fact – to meet filing deadlines in November and December for the critical early primary elections.
Analysts believe the nominee will be selected, for all intents and purposes, by March 2 – an election night Super Tuesday, with primaries in California, New York, Texas, Ohio and eight smaller states.
But realistically, the race will be over the day Hillary enters the race – and that is coming any day.
Oh, and by the way, Hillary has just managed to get herself scheduled as the featured speaker this month at a major Democratic Party event in Iowa – the location of the first caucuses where delegates are chosen.
So don't be surprised. Remember where you heard it. Hilary is running. She will be the nominee of her party for president in 2004. The rest of the also-rans are merely jockeying for a vice presidential nomination.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: November 3, 2003
1:00 a.m. Eastern
© 2003 WorldNetDaily.com
I'm going to go way out on a limb today and predict with nearly 100 percent certainty that Hillary Clinton will seek and win the Democratic Party nomination for the presidency in 2004.
I know others have speculated about this.
I'm not speculating. I'm forecasting. I'm prophesying. If I were a betting man, I would be placing the farm on it.
Why am I so sure?
The latest polls bear out what others before them show – the nomination is hers for the asking.
The most recent survey, conducted by Quinnipiac University, shows Clinton getting 43 percent of the vote if she enters the race against the remaining nine Democratic dwarfs. She polls higher than Wesley Clark, Joe Lieberman, Richard Gephardt, John Kerry and Howard Dean combined.
In other words, this would not be a contest if Hillary entered the picture.
That alone must be a very tempting prospect for someone as ambitious as Hillary Rodham.
How many politicians would not seize an opportunity like that?
I don't think she can resist – which explains the way she's talking recently.
She's getting vitriolic against President Bush. She's going ******. She's going ballistic. She's even more shrill than usual.
Last week, just before her high holy day of Halloween, she said "the pillars of democracy are shaking" due to Bush's need to avoid "political embarrassment" over the Sept. 11 terror attacks and the Iraq war.
It was her sharpest attack yet on the president's handling of foreign policy. Clinton suggested Bush was trying to hide troop casualty figures and was using national security as a cover for failures. She said the White House's refusal to hand over documents to the commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks "unnecessarily raises suspicions that it has something to hide."
"We must always be vigilant against letting our desire to keep information confidential be used as a pretext for classifying information that is more about political embarrassment," she added for good measure.
I guess she wants an open administration like the one her husband ran.
Clinton said Bush's foreign policy has been marked by an "aggressive unilateralism."
"We now go to war as a first resort against perceived threats, not as a necessary final resort," she said.
But there's one clincher for me. There's one fact that persuades me more than any other that she is running. And that is her consistent denials.
Hillary doesn't know the truth. It is as much a stranger to the junior senator from New York as sunlight is to a vampire.
And, from a practical standpoint, she's still got time. She will need to declare her candidacy soon – this month, in fact – to meet filing deadlines in November and December for the critical early primary elections.
Analysts believe the nominee will be selected, for all intents and purposes, by March 2 – an election night Super Tuesday, with primaries in California, New York, Texas, Ohio and eight smaller states.
But realistically, the race will be over the day Hillary enters the race – and that is coming any day.
Oh, and by the way, Hillary has just managed to get herself scheduled as the featured speaker this month at a major Democratic Party event in Iowa – the location of the first caucuses where delegates are chosen.
So don't be surprised. Remember where you heard it. Hilary is running. She will be the nominee of her party for president in 2004. The rest of the also-rans are merely jockeying for a vice presidential nomination.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DickyW:
Buzzsaw
Careful betting with Railbird! He has recently been downgraded to a C- due to a slow pay on a previous bet.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
without even giving a bad excuse why he is'nt paying....he should be at the best a d- to an f
Buzzsaw
Careful betting with Railbird! He has recently been downgraded to a C- due to a slow pay on a previous bet.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
without even giving a bad excuse why he is'nt paying....he should be at the best a d- to an f
Why is Bush a lock ?
I don't see how he can win another term.
He's a bafoon.
Bush will NEVER get another 4 years. Way too many lies and stupid moves has made him look like a fool.
Just wait till the election comes closer.... Bush will get wasted because of all the lies this president has allowed.
I don't see how he can win another term.
He's a bafoon.
Bush will NEVER get another 4 years. Way too many lies and stupid moves has made him look like a fool.
Just wait till the election comes closer.... Bush will get wasted because of all the lies this president has allowed.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by doggystyle:
Bush will NEVER get another 4 years. Way too many lies and stupid moves has made him look like a fool.
Just wait till the election comes closer.... Bush will get wasted because of all the lies this president has allowed.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Most people understand the difference between being wrong and lying. Democrats don't realize this, and keep trying to find the magic words that will "wake everyone up" concerning Bush. it won't work, but it is entertaining seeing a once prominent party destroy itself in its sick pandering to left wing kooks.
I'm riding out my 25-1 wager on Dean...Hillary won't come in, Clark is a joke, Kerry is running at the wrong time, and everyone else is minor leagues. Gephardt may get some staying power because of the unions, but his Iraq vote kills him with the base.
Bush will NEVER get another 4 years. Way too many lies and stupid moves has made him look like a fool.
Just wait till the election comes closer.... Bush will get wasted because of all the lies this president has allowed.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Most people understand the difference between being wrong and lying. Democrats don't realize this, and keep trying to find the magic words that will "wake everyone up" concerning Bush. it won't work, but it is entertaining seeing a once prominent party destroy itself in its sick pandering to left wing kooks.
I'm riding out my 25-1 wager on Dean...Hillary won't come in, Clark is a joke, Kerry is running at the wrong time, and everyone else is minor leagues. Gephardt may get some staying power because of the unions, but his Iraq vote kills him with the base.
The only reason Hillary comes out ahead of the other Dems is name recognition. Hell, half the people that voted for Bush Junior thought they were voting for his dad. The Dem that wins the ticket will catch up in the name recognition department.
Current polls show Bush against "unnamed democrat" is pretty dead even. This indicates the people want a change, as a incumbant would normally have big lead (don't forget, Bush got less than half the votes last time and Nader took votes away from Gore).
That said, the BEST ticket the Dems can put out for 2004 is Dean and Clark together. Dean can rally the base and grass roots. Clark can provide foreign and military experience.
Hillary can't run without completing her first full term as a Senator. The Republicans just float her name up every few weeks to distract the news organizations. While Hillary might make a run in 2008, she probably wouldn't if a Dem beats Bush in 2004. 2012 would be ideal for Hillary, as she would have had 2 full terms as a senator, a long voting record, and enough time for people to see the long-term effects of Bush vs Clinton policies.
Current polls show Bush against "unnamed democrat" is pretty dead even. This indicates the people want a change, as a incumbant would normally have big lead (don't forget, Bush got less than half the votes last time and Nader took votes away from Gore).
That said, the BEST ticket the Dems can put out for 2004 is Dean and Clark together. Dean can rally the base and grass roots. Clark can provide foreign and military experience.
Hillary can't run without completing her first full term as a Senator. The Republicans just float her name up every few weeks to distract the news organizations. While Hillary might make a run in 2008, she probably wouldn't if a Dem beats Bush in 2004. 2012 would be ideal for Hillary, as she would have had 2 full terms as a senator, a long voting record, and enough time for people to see the long-term effects of Bush vs Clinton policies.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Shotgun:
Most people understand the difference between being wrong and lying. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> is being wrong 90% of the time somehow better than lying 90% of the time?
hell, we EXPECT presidents to lie most of the time, but not to be so stupid most of the time
Most people understand the difference between being wrong and lying. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> is being wrong 90% of the time somehow better than lying 90% of the time?
hell, we EXPECT presidents to lie most of the time, but not to be so stupid most of the time
