| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| Noonan: Hillary will be hard to Beat |
| 2005-03-31 |
| First, it is good to be concerned about Mrs. Clinton, for she is coming down the pike. It is pointless to be afraid, but good to be concerned. Why? Because we live in a more or less 50-50 nation; because Mrs. Clinton is smarter than her husband and has become a better campaigner on the ground; because her warmth and humor seem less oily; because she has struck out a new rhetorically (though not legislatively) moderate course; because you don’t play every card right the way she’s been playing every card right the past five years unless you have real talent; because unlike her husband she has found it possible to grow more emotionally mature; because the presidency is the bright sharp focus of everything she does each day; because she is not going to get seriously dinged in the 2008 primaries but will likely face challengers who make her look even more moderate and stable; and because in 2008 we will have millions of 18- to 24-year-old voters who have no memory of her as the harridan of the East Wing and the nutty professor of HillaryCare. The Hillary those young adults remember will be the senator--chuckling with a throaty chuckle, bantering amiably with Lindsey Graham, maternal and moderate and strong. Add to that this: Half the MSM will be for her, and the other half will be afraid of the half that is for her. (You think journalists are afraid of the right? Journalists are afraid of each other.) And on top of all that, It’s time for a woman. Almost every young woman in America, every tough old suburban momma, every unmarried urban high-heel-wearing, briefcase-toting corporate lawyer will be saying it. They’ll be working for, rooting for, giving to the woman. I am of course exaggerating, but not by much. Can a Republican beat her? Sure. She’ll have to make mistakes, and she will. And he (it will be a he; it’s not Condi, because the presidency is not an entry-level political office) will have to be someone who stands for big, serious and solidly conservative things, and really means it, which will mark a nice contrast with Mrs. Clinton, who believes only in herself. He will also have to be able to do the delicate dance of running against a woman without seeming scared, patronizing, nervous or macho. It isn’t going to be easy. But it’s doable. |
| Posted by:Mrs. Davis |
| #10 Until we get to the point where women (who by the way, are 50% of the US voting strength) would want to vote for a female candidate, why should I, waste mine! |
| Posted by: smn 2005-03-31 5:18:04 PM |
| #9 She can run, With those thankles? Fat chance... |
| Posted by: Raj 2005-03-31 1:18:22 PM |
| #8 because in 2008 we will have millions of 18- to 24-year-old voters who have no memory of her But the bloggers will be there to provide them with those memories. Where do you think the voters of that age group get their news, it's off the web, not on network news or the dead tree edition of the MSM. If Kerry thought the Swiftboat Vets were rough, wait till the HildaBeast starts running. Plus unless the Republicians nominate a child-molesting Satan worshiper, the blue-staters will crawl naked over broken glass to vote against her. That includes the women voters. Blowjob Bill may have been able to fool the voters, but she ain't him. |
| Posted by: Steve 2005-03-31 12:40:58 PM |
| #7 because in 2008 we will have millions of 18- to 24-year-old voters who have no memory of her Like all the 18-24 year olds who were supposed afraid of the upcoming draft in '04. With all the money and "Rock the Vote" BS the MSM dished out, the % of 18-24 year old kids who voted remained the same. A dismal 20-30% IIRC. Point is, the kids just don't care and you can't make 'um. So dems, continue to waste money and effort on this age group. It ain't gonna matter on election day. |
| Posted by: mmurray821 2005-03-31 10:33:04 AM |
| #6 because in 2008 we will have millions of 18- to 24-year-old voters who have no memory of her Right. That same bloc of young idealistic liberal voters that propelled John Kerry to his landslide presidential victory. What? John Kerry lost? Frankly, regardless of who the Democratic candidate is, the electoral college math is strongly against them at this point in time. However, Ms. Noonan is correct on one point. The electorate is closely divided, so the GOP cannot afford a subpar campaign performance by the eventual nominee. BTW Anyone but Condi! |
| Posted by: Dreadnought 2005-03-31 10:26:52 AM |
| #5 The Senate has frequently been an entry level position. The prseidency has not. Post-founding father exceptions? Eisenhower, Hoover, Grant, all gained fame in military victories; Hoover in the humanitarian reconstruction efforts after WWI. Pays to lead an army to victory. Tommy Franks for President. |
| Posted by: Mrs. Davis 2005-03-31 10:14:48 AM |
| #4 Peggy has dropped off a few pegs. Hilderbest has already turned off most self-respecting men with her screeching shouts. She can run, but she cannot hide from her socialist record. How many hair styles has she had over the past decade? It would be interesting to see an political advertisement showing her various positions on issues coupled with her varying make-overs. |
| Posted by: Dennis Kucinich 2005-03-31 9:52:36 AM |
| #3 it will be a he; it’s not Condi, because the presidency is not an entry-level political office Unlike the Senate, apparently. |
| Posted by: Robert Crawford 2005-03-31 9:37:31 AM |
| #2 I lost all respect for Peggy Noonan - she needs a year or two break and a humility injection. |
| Posted by: Frank G 2005-03-31 9:23:18 AM |
| #1 I'll play the odds on history. The Zero Factor is still in play. If it does happen, no Dem candidate will be able to take the executive office for the next couple of elections. |
| Posted by: Jealet Thereting9222 2005-03-31 8:47:52 AM |