Re: Wesley Clark: Still Not a Democrat

Martin McPhillips wrote:

> > GASP!!!!
> >
> > He really scares you guys doesn't he?

  (Note the predictable, worthless B.S. response from a Clark-fraud
defender.)


  [M. McP.:]
 
> The only people who have to worry about Wesley
> Clark are Democrats. Republicans will have to
> worry about him after he's drubbed by Democrats
> and he considers switching sides.
> 
> Clark is a numbnuts. Dean is a hysteric. That
> means that unless Hillary gets into the race the
> nomination will go to one of the establishment
> candidates: Kerry, Lieberman, Gephardt.

  Along with the obvious suspicion that the Clintons and McAuliffe are
behind this possibly to get Hillary back in the White House even
earlier than originally intended, in 2008, at a minimum this is being
done by the heads of the Democratic Party to wreck the Dean campaign. 
(That it also exploits the desperation and gullibility of Democratic
voters is obvious, given the result as soon as Clark was introduced
into the race.)

 
> Hillary will wait until the third quarter GDP
> numbers come in on October 30 before
> she makes her decision. If the economy
> sank back to 2.0 or 2.5% growth, she might
> not be able to resist her feral hunger to
> regain power. If the economy is growing
> at 4.0 or 4.5% or higher, it's unlikely she'll
> jump in.

  Yep.

  The main strategy that has been suspected all along is to get Dubya
re-elected next year, then he's through (and a lame duck) and the GOP
is forced to start over from scratch (can anyone see Cheney succeeding
Dubya?) with nobody strong to run.  (Neither Powell nor Rice look to
be running, and the only GOP member with heavyweight potential,
Rumsfeld, probably could never be elected President.)

  However, that changes if Bush looks beatable after all.  Never mind
Iraq nor the economy, which hasn't gone away as an issue, either, just
been upstaged; what about things like this CIA identity issue?  And
what of those who see more omens, such as not only the GOP Senators'
reluctance to rubber-stamp the $87B for Iraq, but even omen-ish events
like the news about Rush Limbaugh and drugs that has got to get
liberals everywhere stirred up, seeing the chance that one of their
most hated icons that they could never defect may fall after all?

  Plus don't forget how in the 2000 campaign it looked like Al Gore
had a lock on everything, and then Gore proceeded to not only be sunk
by Clinton but also defeat himself, and in the end lost the debates to
Dubya, which was a sign that Dubya could win after all -- which he
then did.

  I wonder if Hillary, even if she still sticks to strategy as you
point out, M. McP., is getting an itch lately on that trigger finger.


  Dave Simpson