That may be true, but don't forget that Bush did not overwhelm Kerry in the last election, and Kerry may be one of the worst presidential candidates we have ever seen. If the economy is not good, the "whatever you want to call" it in Iraq will be secondary. The housing market and refinancing kept the consumer alive during Bush's first term, let's see what it looks like in a couple of years..... Should the economy sputter or oil and gas move higher, those tax cuts for the wealthy may not look as palatable as they do now to the general public.
I don't think Hillary has handled things well as of late. Many have soured on Hillary lately due to her hawkish position, which while one might think would draw in swing voters, she comes off as somewhat insincere and pandering to the swing voters. I think her hawkish position has turned off many on the left side of the democratic party. She is at odds with the doves of the party, and the very hawkish right wingers aren't going to trust Hillary no matter what she does, because of her relationship with Bill. Some of the Hollywood and far left money isn't going to flow to Hillary the way it might have a year ago. I don't think she has played it well, that's the reason for my change in opinion, and the "buddy buddy" relationship with Bill and Bush Sr. doesn't really help the dems love of Hillary. So much can change quickly. Remember that Kerry looked like he was done before the early primaries where Dean had the momentum...... These days, one big slip...
I disagree. One look at this weeks port controversy should tell you that no matter how poorly the war polls or how much Americans say Islam is a religion of peace, the reality of what voters feel is quite different. On one hand you say a woman would be suspect as a commander in chief, the next you say Hillary is too hawkish. I think she's straddling those conflicting concerns with aplomb. The left has no place to go. They'll never get their kind of candidate in a winnable election cycle. Ain't no Dean's or Kucinich's heading up the '08 ticket. Hillary is a great electoral demographic. 20% of the left finds her a turncoat, 20% of the right thinks she's a card carrying communist and she owns a majority of the middle. Honestly the Republican's will be lucky if the Dem's self destruct and nominate a white, male leftist.
Senator Hillary Clinton will be the next president. The reason is simple. The Clintons know how to play hardball. Unlike the faggots Kerry and Gored, who were easily cowered by lies and never fought back, the Clintons are tough. They have a gameplan to sling the neo-commie shit right back at the commies. And they are ready to play the pay back game. When she gets into power, watch how many corrupt good old boy commies get sent to jail.
Me too - though I never had an impression he was corrupt. Remember this guy lost by one supreme court vote I don't know the situation with Gore's spouse though. She has been ill in the past. Yes he does need to trim down. He's gotten big.
The Clintons are tough? Common, Bill bombed Iraq whenever the heat from Monicagate got too much and Hillary suffered years of public humiliation at Bill's hands. Then she got elected and voted for war against Iraq and the Patriot Act. This is not hardball. Dems have no chance IMO until they shed their republican-light Democratic Leadership Council wing. If Gore could stay the 'new Gore' he would be great. A real opposition leader that stands for something for a change.... dream on res....
The Dems strong suit in the past have been populist issues, when the people rise up demanding change. Unless there is a populist economic issue on the rise, the dems are going to have a difficult time. I continue to think the economy will decide the next election. If Bush's economy is good in 2008, it will be next to impossible for a democrat to win as long as the republican candidate is palatable. However, we can hope.... Reid says Bush administration's 'incompetence' will aid Democrats RENO, Nev. Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid says if mid-term elections were held today Democrats would win the five seats they need to draw even in the Senate, due largely to what he calls the Bush administration's "general incompetence" at home and abroad. Reid said in Reno today that the Bush administration that is going to be noted for -- quoting now -- "its incompetence not its accomplishments." Reid made his comments in an interview with The Associated Press after a forum on Medicare reforms at the University of Nevada's School of Medicine. Reid says polls show Democrats winning Republican-held seats in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Montana, Missouri and Rhode Island. He says they also have a good chance of winning in Arizona and Tennessee. He says if the elections were held today, Democrats would pick up five seats and the Senate would be equally divided 50-50. Reid told about 100 faculty members, students and community leaders that the administration's prescription drug program for Medicare is intended to do away with Medicare altogether. He says the administration has caused the number of uninsured Americans to increase by more than one million a year under its watch. Reid says that under President Bush, the poor are getting poorer, the rich getting richer and the middle class is being squeezed. Reid described Bush's budget priorities are "scary." He says the United States currently is spending two (B) Billion-dollars a week on the war in Iraq. p.s. We have had our fill of guns, let's see how much butter is needed in 2008.
Clinton had his hands tied by the commies. Reading existing public domain intelligence reports, it is obvious he did more behind the scenes than the commies give him credit for. He could have done more, only the neo-commies were hounding him for his entire 8 years in office, thereby diverting his administrations attention. Clinton is the only Democrat I have any respect for. The rest are whiny faggots. I have a visceral reaction and often will throw up at the sight of Nancy Pelosi and Kerry.
The Dems actually have some candidates that could win, IF they get the nomination, but that isn't likely. Why, you ask? Because the Democratic party is in the firm control of the radical left. These are the people they always play to. So, even though the Democrats COULD field a viable candidate, they won't, because they have let these extremists take over their party. They are too entrenched. It will be fun to watch, though.