|Howard Dean/other Democrats a stepping stone?||Matno|
Dec 19, 2003 4:18 AM
|This is my prediction for next year's election. Honestly, I don't know who will win the overall race (especially in light of Saddam's capture and recent, perceived upswings in the economy), but for Democratic candidate, I think it's fairly obvious what the Dem party is doing. They are putting a lot of attention on Dean, who is an idiot (even if he did start into politics by lobbying for a bike trail and even if he did go to the same medical school as I). My forecast says they will oust him towards the end of the campaign and substitute Hillary Clinton. She is a more powerful figure than a lot of people might think, and coming in late to "save" the Democrats from their current multiple candidate quagmire would probably look good (who doesn't want to vote for a "reluctant" candidate?) On top of all that, she REALLY wants to be president, and I don't think she can afford to wait another term.
Not that that is a good thing, just a prediction. (Heck, when I interviewed at Yale med school, when asked "what is the worst thing that could happen to the U.S. health care system in the next 10 years?" I didn't hesitate before replying "Hillary Clinton." No wonder I didn't get accepted to what is considered the most liberal school in the country!) I really hope she doesn't pull it off, but I think the attempt, at least, is a very real possibility. (Of course, being familiar with her past, it wouldn't surprise me if she also tried to throw in a "grieving widow" act right before running just to keep the press from digging up too much dirt on her. I won't go so far as to predict that she gets rid of Bill just yet, but nothing would really surprise me).
|Grieving widow act ?!||HouseMoney|
Dec 19, 2003 6:47 AM
|As much as I despise the "woman" (I had to try real hard not to use a pejorative just then), even I don't think that's a possibility!
As for Hillary entering the presidential race as a "reluctant candidate swooping in to save the Democratic Party", I'd say that's plausible. If GWB becomes vulnerable and it looks like Dean (or another Dem candidate) can win, the chances become greater. The Clintons can't even decide what they're eating for breakfast without taking a poll, so it may all depend on how the numbers are trending.
I'd love to see it happen in '04, so GWB can clean her clock. But I think even she realizes she needs a little more time to soften her image & come across as electable to a greater segment of the voting public. '08 would be her ideal scenario. OTOH, If Giuliani or Pataki runs against her for her Senate seat in '06, there's always the risk she may lose it (though I doubt it). If that's the case, even her '08 run would be made more difficult since she'll be out of a high-profile Senate job.
If nothing else, the machinations of politics is interesting!
|Love the med school interview story||PaulCL|
Dec 19, 2003 7:39 AM
|No wonder you didn't get accepted.
While waiting for one of my med school interviews at Ohio State, the dean of the college started chatting with a couple of us prospective students. He first talked to same ROTC woman who had interviewed at about a dozen schools, then he turned to me. He asked where I had interviewed, and I said this was the first. In front of the crowd, he blurted out "so, you're a virgin!!" I stammerred back..."no...er...yes...er...oh shi*....you got me". The sadist SOB looked so pleased that he confounded an interviewee. He then said a sarcastic 'good luck in the interview'. Then the actual interview was a grilling from three pr*ck surgeons all at the same time each switching their stance on current events at five minute intervals. I went to med school somewhere else.
|Did you go to Yale Medical School or not? (nm)||eyebob|
Dec 20, 2003 7:30 AM
|Nope. Albert Einstein. (nm)||Matno|
Dec 20, 2003 2:50 PM
|This brings to mind something a jailbird told me about doctors..||Cory|
Dec 20, 2003 4:32 PM
|Before I became a famous online message board commentator, I did 15 years as a news reporter. This thread reminds me of an interview I did years ago with a locally famous con artist in the county jail. He'd ripped off a bunch of physicians in an energy-from-water scheme, and I asked him why. I've since heard this attributed to other people, so it might not be original, but:
"Because they have a lot of money," he said, "and a lot of them aren't as smart as they think they are."
But I can look as dumb as any damn doctor: I'm saying no Hillary, no way, in 2004. Bush will be re-elected (a national tragedy, but never mind) with 55 percent of the popular vote. He's a natural-born f***-up but the best-led man in America, so it's a toss-up whether the voters catch onto him by 2008. Either way, though, Cheney is unelectable, so Hillary goes against somebody (dare we say Jeb?) in 2008 and loses. The next Demo president will be Gavin Newsom, the new mayor of San Francisco, in 2012 or 2016.
If you're not looking 12 years out, you're not really thinking about the future....
|A brilliant forecast||Starliner|
Dec 20, 2003 5:42 PM
|Your crystal ball is very clear. Newsom will be the Demo's future. Hillary will always look promising, but her foundation is built of sand - her actual support will always be much narrower than perceived.
How about this for a scenario - a cache of WMD's found in Iraq in September, Bush rides the turn of good luck to victory in November, in the spring of 2005 rumors come out that the WMD's were actually found in March of 2004 but info was held back six months; Bush confirms but claims it was necessary to do so because the search operation was not complete until September and intelligence sources had to be protected until operation was complete.
Then other information surfaces which indicates other incidents where the timing of various announcements seemed to be orchestrated around critical moments, putting the Bush Administration's interests in a more favorable light.
Bush says, hey, we're fighting terrorism and for the safety of our citizens and for their right to be free. Everything we did was toward that interest. Bush's popularity numbers after taking a dive level out and begin to rise back up....
|A brilliant forecast||bill105|
Dec 22, 2003 7:40 AM
|thats a presidents perogative. release info when the admin wants to. we're just now hearing that wmd's for libya were found months ago and thats what accelerated those ragheads run to honesty. whether you believe it or not, info released early nullifies the ability to track and trace sources and puts people in danger if its not done correctly. after thats all been cleared the admin can release the info when they want.|
|"ragheads run to honesty?" Classy .||eyebob|
Dec 22, 2003 8:25 AM
|Happy Christmas to you too.
|Didn't you hear? They know where the WMDs are!||Cory|
Dec 22, 2003 9:01 AM
|They're in a warehouse at Fort Meade, Maryland, scheduled for delivery to Iraq three weeks before the election.|
|i wish (nm)||bill105|
Dec 22, 2003 9:44 AM