Thursday, January 20, 2005
It's official, Hillary will run in 2008. As a "values" candidate.
If she's selected, it'll be another example of the Democratic party thinking that it can get away with picking a candidate who has just enough positives to get 50% + 1 vote. In Hillary's case, the choice would be doubly cynical, in that her left wing bona fides are well enough established that they all would know she's not serious about the "values" thing.
I think she'll be much easier to take on than Kerry. Kerry had almost no record. Twenty years in the Senate, and nothing to show for it. Hillary's got a record. From her graduation speech, to Watergate, through Arkansas, to the present, she's shown an inclination to Stalinism that constitutes a dirty-tricks, opposition research operative's wet dream.
On the other hand, she's not to be underestimated. She's certainly got copies of those 900 FBI files, and she'll use whats in them. Right there you've got the ability to manipulate much, if not all, of the Washington power elite. Were I t he Republican party, I'd find out who she's got the goods on, and build a candidate with no connection to any of them.
Bill's also a liability. Does America really want him back in the White House? And with no responsibility? Since leaving the White House he's added to his skirt-chasing reputation, which won't help her one little bit (this explains why PResident Bush has been asking Bill for help ). Were I Bill, I'd be asking for more Secret Service protection, lest I end up taking an unfortunate spill off my trailer park Presidential Library into the Arkansas River.
So, to recap, Hillary runs in 2008 after Bill has an unfortunate accident. She loses to a complete newcomer, despite guarded support from all sorts of Republican worthies. She remains in the Senate until she keels over. When she's buried, an entire generation of Arakansans come out of mourning.
If she's selected, it'll be another example of the Democratic party thinking that it can get away with picking a candidate who has just enough positives to get 50% + 1 vote. In Hillary's case, the choice would be doubly cynical, in that her left wing bona fides are well enough established that they all would know she's not serious about the "values" thing.
I think she'll be much easier to take on than Kerry. Kerry had almost no record. Twenty years in the Senate, and nothing to show for it. Hillary's got a record. From her graduation speech, to Watergate, through Arkansas, to the present, she's shown an inclination to Stalinism that constitutes a dirty-tricks, opposition research operative's wet dream.
On the other hand, she's not to be underestimated. She's certainly got copies of those 900 FBI files, and she'll use whats in them. Right there you've got the ability to manipulate much, if not all, of the Washington power elite. Were I t he Republican party, I'd find out who she's got the goods on, and build a candidate with no connection to any of them.
Bill's also a liability. Does America really want him back in the White House? And with no responsibility? Since leaving the White House he's added to his skirt-chasing reputation, which won't help her one little bit (this explains why PResident Bush has been asking Bill for help ). Were I Bill, I'd be asking for more Secret Service protection, lest I end up taking an unfortunate spill off my trailer park Presidential Library into the Arkansas River.
So, to recap, Hillary runs in 2008 after Bill has an unfortunate accident. She loses to a complete newcomer, despite guarded support from all sorts of Republican worthies. She remains in the Senate until she keels over. When she's buried, an entire generation of Arakansans come out of mourning.
Comments:
Post a Comment
