Letters to the Editor
-
GOP strategy for 2008
Here is how the GOP can win in 2008:
1) Say they are terrified of Hillary and play her up as a formidible opponent.
2) Spend two years "debating" a handful of candidates including a couple neocons and a few pro-business millionaires.
3) Toward the end of primaries nominate a traditional Republican "conservative" in the vein of Bob Dole.
4) Run on the following planks: a "redeployment" of forces out of the danger zones; increased money for alternative energy research (following the Bush "commitment" to wean off oil); tax rebates for hybrid car purchases; public school vouchers.
5) Put both gay marriage and abortion bans on a few state ballots.
6) Watch their candidate beat Hillary because the Democrats ran as "Repulicans-lite(tm)" yet again.
-
Way too soon to presume Hillary Clinton will be the Democratic nominee
It is way too soon to presume Hillary Clinton will be the Democratic nominee. History shows that the presumptive nominee often does not get the nomination.
In 1952, after the New Hampshire primary, Estes Kefauver was the most likely Democratic nominee, but Adlai Stevenson won the nomination.
In early 1968, Lyndon Johnson was the presumptive Democratic nominee, but withdrew from the race.
In early 1972, Ed Muskie was the presumptive Democratic nominee, but George McGovern won the nomination. It's worth remembering that at one point Jimmy the Greek offered 50-to-1 odds against George McGovern getting the nomination.
In early 1980, George Bush was considered the most likely Republican nominee, but Ronald Reagan won the nomination.
In early 1987, Gary Hart was the clear frontrunner for the Democratic nomination, but he dropped out in May 1987.
In early 2004, it looked like Howard Dean was the man to beat, but very quickly the race went to John Kerry.
So, can we please stop focusing on presumptive candidates? Can we please listen to all candidates for the nomination, and let the best person win?
-
They're in for a surprise....
Because as long as I suck breath and cast a vote in a Democratic primary, Hillary Clinton will NOT be the presidential candidate in 2008. Wouldn't the ultimate bate-and-switch be to get them to commit to a candidate they think can combat Clinton, only to find that a) she didn't enter the race, or b) she entered the race but wasn't the Democratic candidate?
Quelle surprise, man....
~A~
-
Politics are "Bleakiest" for the Republicans
Mr. Shapiro: You state "It is easy to understand why Democrats can't stop thinking about tomorrow, since today in politics is bleak. Far more mystifying is why the GOP seems so eager to click through to the 2008 campaign even though George W. Bush's White House lease has nearly three more years to run."
The fact that Republicans have to endure three more years of an incompetent, tyrannical, dishonest, and bungling non-leader may be why they are so eager to look forward to the next one. Afterall, not only has this guy's approval ratings sunk deeply into the dregs of his hard-core base, he has also managed to convince a plurality of Americans that Democrats are better on national security, about the only advantage Republicans had left. I suggest Republicans worry less about our outstanding Democratic leaders and worry more about their mediocre Republican ones.
Hillary Clinton has done a terrific job in the US Senate and I am sure that many Democrats wish her the greatest possible success for the next 20 years in that August body.
-
McCain
Will people please stop referring to McCain as a "maverick"? Dig up his speech from this event at the NY Times: '“Anybody who says the president of the United States is lying about weapons of mass destruction is lying,” Mr. McCain said.' He's just another GOP sleazebag/toady who can't even adhere to his own campaign finance 'reform' law.
-
The only reason the Republicans publically tout Hillary as a formidable and inevitable foe...
... is the fact that her name and the threat of her presidency, real or not, whips out the donor checkbooks like nobody's business.
-
That's sloppy headline writing
The writer doesn't refer anywhere to discussions of Hillary by the presumptive candidates--she comes up only in connection with a supposedly "well-connected" consultant who isn't even quoted. So it's on you. Why are you trying to anoint Hillary and hand the election to the Republicans yet again?
-
ha ha
I just wanted to say that I found this line extremely funny:
"Supporters of hometown hero Bill Frist wore decals that read, 'Frist Is My Leader,' which made these Tennesseans seem like members of a cult that discouraged free will."
It goes very well with the picture of Frist that runs with the article. It looks like he's saying "OBEY ME, HUMANS! OBEY MY COMMANDS!"
jf
-
Hillary...
Despite her formidable qualifications, I fear Hillary is unelectable in the United States as we know it today, or is likely to be in 2008. She's too easy for the Republicans... they can beat her without altering the proven modus operandi one bit.
The blue states of the Northeast, North Central and Northwest will go hard for Hillary, accomodating her pro-Bush position on Iraq without introspection. The numerous and relatively unpopulated red states will go hard for whatever yabo the Repugs put up. As for the swing states, she'll lose because of:
1) e-voting (see Diebold/lack of prosecution thereof)
2) fertile ground for swift-boating (see "Ghost of Vince Foster," The "L" word. Note - the latter is not operative if Condi is on the ticket anywhere.)
3) the name Clinton (see "Anti-Christ")
4) Abortion rights (see creeping theocracy)
5) Health care reform (see Socialism)
6) Corporate controlled media (see non-issues such as clothing, hair style, PMS, and other issues designed to denigrate women)
Of course, all this might change if the big money interests decide she's a bigger, better tool than the Republican offering (see all except McCain).
-
The "dreaded Hillary Clinton in 2008"? Huh?
The "dreaded Hillary Clinton in 2008"? The Republicans are dreading Hillary? Are you kidding? She is the Republican dream candidate. The Republicans will be delerious with joy if she becomes the candidate.
The only people I hear dreading a Hillary Clinton candidacy in my state of New Hampshire are Democrats. There can be no weaker, more controversial, more divisive Democratic candidate than Hillary. As an extremely active, well-connected Democratic activist, I have never met one Hillary supporter -- not one. In fact I and every other Democrat I know think her candidacy in '08 would be a disaster, and a gift to the Republicans. Democrats will nominate her only if they have a death wish for their party. As Democrats don't have a political death wish, I wish the news media would quit pushing the unelectable Hillary on us, with statements like your subtitle, which suggest that she has widespread support for '08 and is some kind of a shoe-in for the nomination. She does not, and she is not.
In this state we are checking out a number of possible presidential contenders, like General Wesley Clark, Gov. Mark Warner, or Senator Russ Feingold, among others.
Hillary Clinton is doing a fine job as a senator from New York and she should keep on doing it.