posted
I don't know if anyone els noticed this but after the debate last friday Hilary was beaming. I think she's happy cause Bush won the debate. Hilary wants him to win so that Hilary can run in 2008. Hilary doesn't want Kerry to win cause then she'll have to compete with him for another eight years. I know she said that KErry won and that she supports Kerry but I think she wants Bush to win secretly.
Did Anyone else notice this? What do you think?
Posts: 42 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why wouldn't Kerry be able to run again in 2008?
Lieberman ran again for reelection this year, after all.
And you can bet that if Edwards doesn't get into office this year, he'll be running for Pres in '08; I would not want to be Hilary running against a tougher, more experienced Edwards. Nossir.
Hilary just has too much working against her-- I think she'd run, but she would not stand a chance.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: Why wouldn't Kerry be able to run again in 2008?
He could run, but his chances of being re-elected as the nominee I think would be nominal at best. Unless he really is the best thing the party can offer now and in 4 years (that's assuming he'll lose, which I don't even attempt to know at this point). I just don't see the rest of the democrats wanting to go through another campaign of Kerry.
But I'm not a democrat so maybe to them he is "totally awesome best leader of the planet" material to them.
As for Hillary running and winning the White House....one song comes to mind:
"The B-tch is Back" from Elton John. Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think the media does have some liberal bias, but there are other institutions with conservative biases. I am not saying they necessarily cancel out, but that this is how republicans can still win.
I don't know that any democrats actually want Bush to win so that they can win in 2008. I think the only way a democrat would feel this way is if they had a personal stake in the 2008 election, like Hillary could. I dunno. Maybe I'm not as loyal as other people here, but if I thought that a Bush reelection would improve my odds of becoming president in four years, I can see myself quietly wishing for it. I'm not really giving credence to this idea: I have no idea what's on Hillary's mind. But it's not completely ludicrous to suggest that human nature works this way.
For that matter, it can be argued that it is to the republicans' benefit to lose this election, since right now they don't have a successor to position for 2008. While out of office, they could prepare one, and potentially take 8 of the next 12 years (or more) instead of four more years and then losing possibly the next eight.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ehrlich doesn't have the name recognition, McCain's alienated too much of the Republican base, and Rice has lied too often, too publicly. Frankly, I expect the Ahnuld Amendment to be the Republican solution to this problem.
posted
It wouldn't happen. There's no indication that Jeb wants the job; if he had, he'd've run instead of his brother in the first place. And I think the American people will be plenty tired of the Bush name by that point, which is pretty much the same reason why Hillary Clinton, despite all the Republican gossip to the contrary, will never run for president.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
Tom, I don't think you can oust a candidate just because he doesn't have name recognition; who knew anything about Kerry or Edwards or McCain or anyone before their presidential bids?
I don't like Ehrlich-- he's too pro-gambling, too good-ol-boy for my tastes. That said-- he's a Republican governor in a state that historically falls on the Democratic side of the aisle. There's something to be said for someone who can accomplish that.
What that is, I'm not sure.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Scott, the point is not to oust a candidate, or to say that they can't win, but to say you are often more likely to win as an incumbent, or as a vice president seeking the presidency, or if you have huge name recognition. And yes, recent history has flown in the face of that, but I think recent history has also presented exceptional circumstances.
But I think it helps a party's long term prospects if they pick VP candidates who can be groomed into attractive presidential candidates in the next eight years. Bush, Sr. was the last good example of this, and it worked for the republicans then. Gore was too wooden to ride Clinton's coattails to the White House (though, in fact, he almost did). Vice presidents of single term presidents don't count in this because obviously the country was fed up with the sitting president. Not that Quayle would have made a good candidate in 1996 anyway.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I find it interesting that no one even considers Cheney to be a threat in 2008, and I wholeheartedly agree. Heck, if I had to choose between Cheney and Clinton in 2008, I think I'd pray for the rapture to intervene.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
