That bastion of journalistic integrity, The New York Post, made some surprising odds on St. Hill's run for the roses in '08:
GAMBLING ON HILLARY IN '08Never mind that laying odds on an event that's two years in the future is a sucker bet. What I want to know is: What kind of rosey-red crystal ball is this Sheridan fellow using? Even the populist polling pundits over at PollingReport.com have Hillary losing to either McCain (50% - 39%) or Giuliani (51% - 39%). Rassmussen has Hillary running neck and neck with Condi. Given the demobots maintain their master strategy of running further and futher to the right, the only hope for the Donkey Party in '08, as seen from this early date, is for the Rethuglicans to run a far-right no-hoper like Frist or Allen.April 6, 2006 -- SEN. Hillary Clinton is a 3:1 favorite to be the next president, according to our favorite oddsmaker, Danny Sheridan, followed by Sen. John McCain at 6:1, and Rudy Giuliani and George Allen at 7:1. Sheridan, who correctly predicted on Page Six in 1991 that underdog Bill Clinton would win, lists several reasons why Hillary could be the first woman president: "George Bush and the Republicans have blown it with Iraq and the economy. The thought of having Bill Clinton as her adviser is like having two good vice presidents (him and her running mate) . . . I'd respectfully suggest she name Bill as her v.p. running mate, which would make her a big favorite." Sheridan has John Edwards, Bill Richardson, and Evan Bayh at 20:1 each, Bill Frist at 25:1, and George Pataki, John Kerry and Jeb Bush at the longest odds of 30:1. Sheridan believes, "The only way for the Republicans to win in 2008 is with a McCain-Giuliani ticket."
I wonder if I can call up the Post and place a bet with this guy.
The Invisible Hand of Alan Smithee
Comments (4)
One bright spot of Hillary getting the Dem nomination in 2008 is that, given her obstinate support of the war in Iraq, it might help the growth of third party movements on the left.
Posted by Haikuist | April 18, 2006 11:54 AM
Posted on April 18, 2006 11:54
I don't know, Haikuist. I hope you're right, but the bizarre contortions I see liberals twisting themselves into to justify a vote for the woman doesn't give me much hope. Perhaps when you have no breaking point, the tendency to twist yourself into any shape the powers call for-- all in the name of chickenshit accommodation and out of misguided loyalty to a bunch of well-heeled cutthroats is inevitable.
Hilary is plenty odious on her own, and yet I have no doubt that if Zell Miller or Joe Lieberman got the call, they'd all vote for him, too. It's infuriating, because there are plenty of liberals that are smart on all kinds of issues, except the one to which all their other issues, ideals and grievances are routinely crushed beneath. >:
The other bright spot is that since the DP seems to have zero interest in doing anything about Diebold, et al., no Dem. will be "elected," anyway, no matter how much pandering he/she does on the not-so-happy trail.
Posted by alsis39.75 | April 18, 2006 11:04 PM
Posted on April 18, 2006 23:04
alsis:
i like your image
of the boneless supplicant..
" .... when you have no breaking point, the tendency to twist yourself into any shape the powers call for...."
Posted by js paine | April 19, 2006 4:30 PM
Posted on April 19, 2006 16:30
There's Atrios, pithily summing up the dilemma of liberals held in durance donk. They're not able to recognize that Democratic Party loyalty and holding onto the stated liberal ideals are mutually exclusive. There's a strange dissonance to people who have read Blum, and cite him with conviction, but will still vote for and raise money for the very people who are indicted in his writing. It's mirrored to a large extent in the freedom lovin' rebels of the Republican Party, who can tell you everything that was so evil about Clinton and the Effective Death Penalty Act, to which the obvious answer is a vote for Bush and the Patriot Act.
The liberals will hold forth knowingly about learned helplessness and abused spouse syndrome, as they place another Howard Dean banner on their blogs. My guess is that the dilemma and the solutions are too obvious, too simple, and that this perversely makes acting on easily drawn conclusions out of the question.
Posted by J. Alva Scruggs | April 19, 2006 11:11 PM
Posted on April 19, 2006 23:11