[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
I actually have some dyed-in-the-wool Democratic friends who now say they believe she’s unelectable.[/quote]
I hope that she neither gains the nomination; and if she does, she doesn’t win the Presidency.
With that said…“The Clinton Machine” should never, EVER be underestimated.
Mufasa[/quote]
That’s generally true in war as well as politics. Never underestimate your opponent. Go at it with passion and a well thought out battle plan. I doubt whomever the republican nominee is that they will underestimate the Clinton machine. Although I will say if that machine was so good it would not have lost to Obama in 08’.
One more point, I feel that “the machine”, in the case of Hillary Clinton, is better than the candidate. And having a great candidate is far more important than whatever machine is driving the candidate.
[/quote]
Yeah, if Bill were running I’d say the Clinton machine is an imposing specter. But Bill was an expert politician, Hillary not so much. She’s a smart lady and I give her credit for that, but she’s no where near the politician that Bill was. Speaking strictly in terms of political prowess, there hasn’t been a better pure politician since Kennedy. I’d say Reagan was a close second, but Bill is a political machine. That is of course putting politics aside and looking at talent alone. Personally, I didn’t care for Bill’s stances but he was a hell of a politician. [/quote]
True, but he was a President who never received even 50% of the vote. Unlike Reagan who won by the biggest electoral landslide in Presidential history. When he spoke he literally moved public opinion. He was a master politician of epic proportions and unequaled in his time.
But, yeah Bill Clinton was pretty good too. And so much better than Hillary that there is literally no comparison. Okay, I just thought of a comparison. Like the New York Yankees compared to a high school baseball team.
Yeah…they are that far apart.