Now that would scare me. Lucky for us, it'll never happen. Polls taken in non-election years don't scare me. Actually, polls don't scare me at all. The only 'poll' that matters is still 13 months away. Like MM says, it seems like just yesterday everyone was asking if Republicans were worried about Dean. Now it's Clark. Who will it be next and how many more will it there before the actual nonination? Both sides can post as many articles as they want to support their arguments. The bottom line is that the election is still a long year away and a lot can (and probably will) happen before then.
Why would it be such a hatchet job if it is true? Clinton and his evil crone of a wife are manipulating things behind the scenes. They run the Democratic Party (through their punk stooge Terry McCauliff) and have already told Andrew Cuomo to leave the NY governor's race and encouraged Toricielli to let the corpse known as Lautenberg run instead for NJ's Senate seat. I wouldn't put it past them. And for Hildabeast as president, that would be more awful than words can describe. But thank God, it will never happen.
This is a poll! It is meaningless! Who did they poll? A thousand people in Arkansas. Who knows? The majority of the U.S. knows nothing of Clark and or what he brings to the table. This is stupid! Polls are nonsense!!
Yeah, and we haven't even mentioned Area 51 yet..... Right on cue, life imitates art, one day, I would like to get to the bottom of why people like you have a pathological obsession with the junior senator from new york with fat ankles, must be Freudian or something to do with breastfeeding: chatterbox Republicans for Hillary, Part 1 Why does the GOP yearn for the former first lady to run for president? By Timothy Noah Posted Monday, September 22, 2003, at 4:00 PM PT There's a powerful political movement afoot to draft Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., for president in 2004. Its partisans are committed almost to the point of fanaticism, and their number is growing by the hour. This thing is an absolute juggernaut. Even so, the Draft Hillary '04 forces probably won't secure their candidate's Democratic nomination. Why not? Because they're all Republicans! All right, that's a slight exaggeration. After considerable investigative effort, Chatterbox was able to identify five Democrats who think Hillary Clinton should enter the nomination race. The only one you've likely heard of is Mario Cuomo, former governor of New York, who earlier this month told the New York Post, "I would support her in a flash if she came into the race." But Clinton isn't Cuomo's first draft choice; last month he was touting Al Gore. And even Cuomo says he doesn't expect Clinton to run. Who are the other "Draft Hillary" Democrats? Well, there's Randy S. Howington, who set up this Web site, apparently as a sideline to his main interest, which is honoring the memory of John Denver. A "Vote Democratic" button on the Hillary site indicates Howington's party allegiance. A Miami-based gay rights activist named Robert Kunst is taking time away from his presidency of the Oral Majority (slogan: "No More Bu****!") to circulate a "Draft Hillary" petition online. Kunst is a Democrat, too (though in 2000 he ran for Florida governor as an independent). Kunst is allied with Adam Parkhomenko, a freshman at Northern Virginia Community College who earlier this month registered his "Draft Hillary 2004 for President Committee" with the Federal Election Commission. Parkhomenko is a Democrat. Finally, Esme Taylor of Sausalito, Calif., has a Web site, the Hillary Clinton Forum, that advocates a presidential run. Taylor runs the Yellow Pages Superhighway, a search engine for Yellow Pages listings around the country, and, yes, she's a Democrat. These scattered grass-roots efforts hardly add up to a significant movement within the Democratic Party. Conceivably, they may someday; many great political campaigns had small beginnings. But the halting progress of the Draft Hillary movement on the left is a joke when compared to the rapid snowballing of the Draft Hillary movement on the right. To conservatives, it's a mainstream article of faith that Bill Clinton, who in the end could be stopped only by the constitutional limit on presidential terms, will come back to haunt Republicans by installing his wife in the White House. Booga-booga! Who are the "Draft Hillary" conservatives? You'd do better to ask who isn't. Here's a very incomplete sampling: William Safire wrote about the Clintons' plan for a 2004 Restoration in the Sept. 22 New York Times. According to Safire, Bill Clinton encouraged Wesley Clark's entry into the race in order to leach support from Howard Dean, John Kerry, Joe Lieberman, and Dick Gephardt: If Bush stumbles and the Democratic nomination becomes highly valuable, the Clintons probably think they would be able to get Clark to step aside without splintering the party, rewarding his loyalty with second place on the ticket. In his online column of Sept. 18, Wall Street Journal editorialist John Fund floated the "stalking horse" theory more cautiously before concluding that even if Clark won, the result would be another Clinton presidency: Should Mr. Clark be elected president, the Clintons would have a strong ally in the Oval Office. If he does well but doesn't get the nomination, he may be viewed as a suitable running mate for Mrs. Clinton or some other Democratic nominee in the future. … Mr. Clark no doubt is his own man, but with so many old Clinton hands surrounding him, don't be surprised if Mr. Clinton is occasionally tempted to act as if he were still Mr. Clark's commander-in-chief. President Bush's cousin, John Ellis, envisions a variation on this theme in which Hillary Clinton becomes Clark's running mate. Former Clinton wunderkind Dick Morris, who has long made clear his loathing for Hillary Clinton, claimed in a Sept. 21 interview with Monica Crowley on New York's WABC radio that Hillary and Bill told 150 Democratic Party fat cats dining at their Chappaqua home "not to give money to anybody else." For some reason, Morris had left this detail out of earlier (Sept. 8) telling of this story on Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor. Conservative columnist Mark Steyn urged Clinton to run in an Aug. 31 column, describing her in worthy-adversary tones ("The Clintons didn't get where they are without being bold"). The conservative Washington Times couldn't contain its excitement in a Sept. 18 story reporting that Bill Clinton had said in a California appearance, in response to a question about whether Hillary would run, "That's really a decision for her to make." Further down in the story was Hillary's unambiguous recent statement, "I am absolutely ruling it out." Carl Limbacher, a right-wing investigative reporter, has published an entire book, titled Hillary's Scheme, about how Hillary Clinton plans to run in 2004. Its findings have been endorsed by Rush Limbaugh ("There's no question Hillary Clinton wants to be president") and Sean Hannity ("Of all the books that have been written about [Hillary Clinton], this one is the definitive book that probably the Clintons will fear the most"). Why are all these conservatives desperately committed to the idea that Hillary Clinton will run for president, when most liberals of Chatterbox's acquaintance either have little interest in this prospect or actively oppose it? Chatterbox will explain this puzzling phenomenon in his next column. Timothy Noah writes "Chatterbox" for Slate. Article URL: http://slate.msn.com/id/2088758/
Chatterbox's next article can be one sentence long: The Republicans want Hillary to run because she can't win.
Well, neither can Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell or David Duke, but you don't see a whole cottage industry of books, videos, etc. fantasizing about their conspiratorial plots for world domination, or a "draft falwell" movement from the left. This obsession is just weird and creepy.
There is a tremendous obsession with Cheney, Wolfowitz, and the "neocons." I don't know how it ranks, but it has to be up there.
Whooooooa nellie.....hold on one damned minute here, Sam. I'm not going let that one slide. I hear of all these conspiracy theories on this forum about how Bush was responsible for 9/11, how Bush/Cheney started a war to enrich themselves and their fat cat donors, how Bush "stole" the 2000 election and how Bush is responsible for everything from the deficit to the funk between your toes. Now as for Hillary, there are reasons to fear her. She is probably the greatest threat to individual liberty that has ever risen to power in this country. Just read this little passage of quotes with Hillary's on the end and tell me if she isn't a threat to liberty: She doesn't sound much different than those guys, does she? Hmmmmmm...... And that's just the tip of the iceberg with her.
Thanks for proving my point bamaslammer. You're a joke poster, you've got to be, that was just WAY too easy and Pavlovian.
Who, this goober? Maybe his name in numerology spells out 666, the mark of the BEAST? Nah.....with Al Gore it would only spell out 333 because he's only quasi-evil....the diet coke of evil. But Sam, you didn't refute that quote, which is one of many. She is not a friend to liberty and that's not conspiratorial. It's the truth.
It's all speculation at this point. Clark hasn't really stated his positions, and has not really started politcking yet...we don't know his skill level. But recognize that one of the most-loved, most-despised, but clearly savvy politicians convinced Clark to run, and now Clark has inherited much of his old team... Clinton's. None of Clark's past errors are serious. Americans seem willing to forgive almost anything if it's the 'right' person for the job...I think we're realistic enough to recognize that no one will come without baggage, that all of us make mistakes (and hopefully learn from them). So it's entirely open to debate, but it's all conjecture. Clark's (and even Kerry's) immediate popularity indicates that he does have the opportunity to dethrone Bush. But the race has just begun. Clark/Kerry? Hmmm....
You're right, she's a communist. In fact, I heard she was conspiring to remedy inequality and injustice at the expense of liberty with THIS MAN!!! Poor would get poorer? Rich get richer? Right on my man, straight out of Das Kapital. Workers of the world, unite!
Nice post. I haven't even considered a Clark/Kerry ticket. That could really be a nightmare for the GOP. Yes, it is early, but that Bush's numbers would drop like this and that Clark or Dean or Kerry could emerge as credible candidates would have been dismissed by the vast majority of the media, Independents, moderate Republicans and one hell of a lot of Democrats last Fall.
Both John Kerry and Wesley Clark beat Bush in an Election. There is a trend I notice. At the very start of the campaign it was John Edwards and John Kerry. Then it became Howard Dean as the attention getter and then John Kerry. Now it is Wesley Clark as the attention getter and then .... John Kerry. I think by the end of this John Kerry will be the candidate left standing. With Wesley Clark as his Vice President.
I don't see it, because: Kerry would be dead weight. He has no charisma and his star is falling faster by the day. He has already peaked as a candidate (he was a front-runner a few months ago if I remember correctly) Gephardt would not work either. He switches positions more than he switches underwear. Lieberman would be an anchor as well with his devoid personality and Dean.....well, Dean sticks his foot in his mouth constantly, making him a liability (you'd already have someone [Clark] doing that on the ticket. They don't need two of them!). I think it would be Clark and John Edwards.....unless we conspiracy theorists on the right are right and he's lead-blocking for Hillary to enter the race as her VP. And Sam, God bless you.....you took my remarks out of context. I did not mean them in regards to the rich and poor PEOPLE....it was to the rich and poor STATES. Wholly different concept when the subject is about how our representative republic is constructed.
Well, at this point Clark and/or Kerry might lead in a poll, something that says Bush is beatable. Remember that the Bush family knows how to get into office. From Bush the Elder's back-door deal with Iran to get onto Voodoo-Economics-Reagan's ticket, to his own race against Willie Horton (I mean, Dukakis) to Bush the Lesser's younger brother purging black and lower-income voters, it is a long way to the election. In the interest of equal time, Ross Perot hurt Bush the Elder more than he did Clinton. What if Ralph Nader's Ego gets into the race? The check to his campaign will be signed "Karl Rove."
I don't think Clark can beat Bush by himself. He just doesn't have the political background to handle the blinding spotlight he just walked into. If he stutters, it makes news. He would make a *perfect* VP, though: excellent credentials, strong military ties, big appeal to moderates, less spotlight on his weaknesses, etc. I'm still holding out hope for a Dean/Clark ticket. That covers the entire Democratic spectrum. It's still early, though. Maybe Clark will prove me wrong. I hope he does.
He was one of two candidates (Wesley Clark) that were ahead of Bush in head to head election polls. His star isnt falling. Whatever that means... Former Gov. Jeanne Shaheen endorsed Kerry in New Hampshire today. That is going to mean a lot there.
Republicans are probably hoping for Dean. I don't see him as a straight-talker like some do...like a McCain...I see him as a negative, whiney anti-Bush. He may pick up a lot of pissed-off Democrats, but won't be too successful with moderates. I think Clark or Kerry will be tougher, but for some reason I don't see Kerry picking up enough momentum (could be wrong on that, though).
