 |
The Billary Road to Republican Victory – New York Times — Frank Rich, as an essayist, uses some of the more powerful writing structures one can imagine and this column is a beauty.
As anyone who has listened to me on more generalized podcasts knows that for the past number of years I have been promoting the idea that McCain is the next President. I thought the whole thing was probably predetermined around 2001 to keep him quiet. Anyway, somehow the Times had to endorse this notion despite the fact that they will endorse the Democrat when the time comes. This column is key as the Clinton Library will be the undoing of Hillary becoming President. Obama is unelectable in 2008 but I will predict he will be the candidate in 2012 and win then (you’ll see why in a couple of years).
Meanwhile, consider this. Who actually wanted to push the timetable ahead for the 2008 elections? Who benefits the most? What it does is set the slate early so the media has more time to dig. This column clearly cites the target and challenges the media. (AND NOTE THE GRAPHIC OF A TARGET).
Remember Eagleton? He was the orginal VP candidate on the Democratic ticket in 1972. He had to give up his candicacy when it was discoverd he had electro-convulsive therapy. He resigned just before the election. The Democrats have been bunglers ever since. Now this.
Asked by Tim Russert at a September debate whether the Clinton presidential library and foundation would disclose the identities of its donors during the campaign, Mrs. Clinton said it wasn’t up to her. “What’s your recommendation?” Mr. Russert countered. Mrs. Clinton replied: “Well, I don’t talk about my private conversations with my husband, but I’m sure he’d be happy to consider that.”
Not so happy, as it turns out. The names still have not been made public.
Just before the holidays, investigative reporters at both The Washington Post and The New York Times tried to find out why, with no help from the Clintons. The Post uncovered a plethora of foreign contributors, led by Saudi Arabia. The Times found an overlap between library benefactors and Hillary Clinton campaign donors, some of whom might have an agenda with a new Clinton administration. (Much as one early library supporter, Marc Rich’s ex-wife, Denise, had an agenda with the last one.) “The vast scale of these secret fund-raising operations presents enormous opportunities for abuse,” said Representative Henry Waxman, the California Democrat whose legislation to force disclosure passed overwhelmingly in the House but remains stalled in the Senate.
I’m betting on a Democratic landslide. Even if Hillary is the nominee, there is no way that they can dig up enough dirt to make her look worse than W.
The serious scandal count of the Bush administration is around the 60 range, and yet apparently its not enough to impeach. The general population is sick and damn tired of Republican schenanigans, and McCain has supported these schenanigans over and over.
McCain’s negatives are age and the complete lack of change he brings to the executive. I live in Arizona and we are sick of him ourselves. The last time he took a stand for anything was his stand against torture, and we supported him. Then he caves, lets the torture provisions go through and votes FOR the Military Commissions Act of 2006 — one of the most immoral pieces of legislation in American History.
McCain will lose the Presidency on 2008, and his Senate seat on 2010.
#41
If it ends up McCain-Hillary, you better prepare yourself for another Republican President. I think Hillary beats any Republican candidate other than McCain primarily because McCain appeals to moderates far better than Hillary (which is also why I do not think he’ll win the nomination). Btw, if McCain does become President, that makes the Democrats look like a complete grease fire. That even after the most vilified Presidency in modern history, they still cannot beat his party makes them look completely incompetent.
#42, Tommy,
McCain won’t win. He may look good in your eyes today, but when the past is aired he won’t look so good.
Hillary only looks bad to those who wouldn’t vote for her anyway. Why do they hate her so much? Because the Republicans have spent the past 15 years telling us she is a bad person. Not WHY she is a bad person, mind you, only that she is.
An offensive negative campaign worked so well in the past. The electorate is tired of it and wants it to stop. After the conventions, watch for the Democratic nominee to soar in popularity as Republican tactics come back to haunt them.
#43
It is more accurate to say that the only people that think Hillary is not bad are the people that would vote for her regardless of what she does. It is not just Republicans that hate Hillary. I know many liberals and moderate Democrats that cannot stand her either. The key to winning the Presidency is the moderates. If Hillary wins, McCain will win the moderate vote and will take the election.