The journey from there to here
Is the left placing too much hope in their menopausal messiah?
Published on June 10, 2006 By Gideon MacLeish In Politics

Note: This article is written as a companion piece for the one to follow.

In 2004, US Democrats were presented with a very winnable election. A less than popular president, associated with a less than popular war was presiding over an economy that, while improving, was not what we remembered from the 1990's. The Democrats could do no better than John Kerry, whose lack of charisma and a consistent, coherent platform (he should have just made his campaign slogan "Bush sucks!" It probably would have netted him more votes).

As 2008 comes nearer, the Democrats are hoping to regain the keys to the White House, and they seem to have pinned all their hopes exclusively on the Menopausal Messiah, Ms. Hillary Rodham Clinton. They are hoping that Hillary Rodham Clinton's presence will both evoke memories of what many Americans consider to be a happier time under her husband, and will bring out the female supremacist vote en masse to vote with their vaginas rather than with their minds. This pandering shows that the Democratic Party is not long removed from the arguments of those who once opposed women's suffrage because they believed women would simply echo their husband's votes and thus give two votes to the household. And yet, as patronizing as it is, it is the way that the DNC operates, taking for granted the votes of minority groups because they do not seem to realize those groupd are composed of individuals who can and will make up their own minds.

I believe that Hillary Rodham Clinton is the DNC's last gasp for political relevancy. The party has literally put all its eggs in one basket, and if Hillary fails to produce the keys to the executive mansion, this will be a party that will drastically need retooling if it is to survive at all. The DNC has produced NO viable leaders to challenge Hillary in 2008, and, in fact, fringe elements in the Green and Socialist parties have made far more strides in this area, something that will probably help these groups to successfully complete their hijack of the party once the queen of the harpies returns to New York to complete her Senate term.


Comments
on Jun 10, 2006
To have viable leaders you must have members with vision and leadership qualities. The Democrats have relied on merely gainsaying the Republicans for so long, they don't seem to remember what it's like to have an original idea.

Hillary emerged as a viable hope for the White House in the 90s, and no won seems to have anything else to offer. Even when you listen to the Democrat's hopes for taking the House in 2006, look at what their plans are... "Impeach Bush", "Investigate the WMD claims", "Investigate this", "Investigate that"... Even if they win the House, them most they have promised is a campaign to run against a president who isnt' running for any office.

I guess Hilliary is the perfect front runner for the Democrats... a No Vision candidate for a No Vision party.
on Jun 10, 2006
Hey, para...I have a question. I had some photoshop ideas for this article. In the future, would you be interested in working with me on a couple of photoshop projects for some of my articles? I can't pay you at this point, but I will CERTAINLY credit you fully for your work.
on Jun 10, 2006

guess Hilliary is the perfect front runner for the Democrats... a No Vision candidate for a No Vision party.

Ya beat me to it!  Succint and true.

on Jun 10, 2006
Hey, para...I have a question. I had some photoshop ideas for this article. In the future, would you be interested in working with me on a couple of photoshop projects for some of my articles? I can't pay you at this point, but I will CERTAINLY credit you fully for your work.


I'd love to work with you... I don't have photoshop, but Email me with what you have in mind. ParaTed2k@yahoo.com
on Jun 10, 2006
I think running her is the only chance they have, but I really doubt she can win unless the Republicans can't find anyone of any value. There are a lot of powers that will align themselves against her, from the grass roots up.

I think she and her husband are repugnant and their political and social philosophies are worse. I would consider it my duty as a human being to use whatever skills I have to woo people away from voting for her. If I feel that way, you can bet a lot of people to my right would be even more motivated than me.

A Hillary run for president will be an all-out political war. I don't think that a) her platform will stand up to it, and that she can keep the skeletons buried. You can be the Dems are struggling to find someone more palatable before it is too late.

*** but ***

There is also a rumor. People found it insane that Rupert Murdoch, Papa Fox News, would throw his weight behind fundraising for her Senate campaign. Some people think she bought that support with a vow not to run for President in 2008.

Honestly, if she is smart, it would probably be better to wait until 2012. The problem is if they actually win in 2008, that would put her waiting until 2016, or facing a sitting Democratic President. She's turning 60 next year. The risk of having to wait until she is 70 is high if the Dems find someone good in 2008.

For that reason, I think she almost has to run, unless she is *certain* that the Dems will lose in 2008.
on Jun 10, 2006
Hillary does have one thing going for her. She does have great skill in motivating voters! The question is, who would a Hillary for President Campaign motivate more.. Those motivated to vote for her? Or those motivated against her? :~D