Home
News
Behind the Headlines
Two-Cents Worth
Video of the Week
News Blurbs
Short
Takes
Plain
Talk
The
Ryter Report
DONATIONS
Articles
Testimony
Bible Questions
Internet Articles (2015)
Internet Articles (2014)
Internet
Articles (2013)
Internet Articles (2012)
Internet Articles (2011)
Internet Articles (2010)
Internet Articles
(2009)
Internet Articles (2008)
Internet Articles (2007)
Internet Articles (2006)
Internet Articles (2005)
Internet Articles (2004)
Internet Articles (2003)
Internet Articles (2002)
Internet Articles (2001)
From
The Mailbag
Books
Order
Books
Cyrus
Rednecker
Search
About
Comments
Links
|
August 11, 2003
By Jon Christian
Ryter
Copyright 2003 - All Rights Reserved
To distribute this article, please post this web address or hyperlink
he
upcoming campaign for the White House in 2004 is beginning to look a lot
like the Democratic race of 1984. During that race, incumbent president
Ronald Reagan devastated his opponent, former Vice President Walter Mondale
and his running mate, Congresswoman Geraldine Ferraro. Aside from the
fact that Mondale was Jimmy Carters vice president, and Carter resided
over the worst economy of the 20th century, Mondale
also promised the American people that he would raise taxes if he was
elected. Mondale, a socialist, believed the only way to boost the economy
was to more heavily tax the middle class and give more welfare money to
those who did not want to work.
Several of the Dead Nine (who
actually think they have a chance to win the Democratic nomination next
year), have opted to adopt Mondales strategy (which got him nominated
but cost him one of the two worst political losses since the Election
of 1820) when John Quincy Adams, the Federalist, snagged only one electoral
vote in his battle to win the presidency against James Monroe.
Mondale argued that Reagans trickle-down
economics would destroy the nation. What he
meant was that many of the current liberal entitlement programs were in
jeopardy if taxes were not raised immediately and several new ones planned
by the Democrats could not be implemented if there was no increased tax
base to pay for them.
History confirmed that the economic principles
of Reaganomics were sound. When Jimmy Carter left office on January 20,
1981, the American economy was devastated by a 28% inflation rate and
15% unemployment. Reagans trickle down economics worked.
Reaganomics produced the longest period of sustained economic growth in
the history of the United States (a period of growth that Bill and Hillary
Clinton--and the Democratic Party today--tried to claim was the result
of their soaking the American taxpayer with the largest tax increase in
the history of mankind). The Democrats, who are predominantly socialists
at heart, still havent learned the two most basic rules of economics:
[1] the economy works best when interfered with the least; and [2] lower
taxes generate more tax revenue for the government than higher taxes.
All
of the public Democratic hopefuls (and the three non-candidate
candidates who will likely be the only ones still standing when the contestants
enter the home stretch next summer) not only favor revoking the Bush tax
cuts and imposing stiffer taxes on the middle class, but are campaigning
on that very platform. Former Vermont governor Howard Dean (who is only
a little less of a socialist than four-term Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich)
advocates rolling back all of the Bush tax cuts. Most Americans,
he said recently, would gladly pay the same taxes they paid under
President Bill Clinton if they could just get the Clinton economy back.
First, the economic growth Dean referred
to was not Clintons--it was Reagans. Second, that growth mushroomed
not out of increased taxes and increased financial hardship on middle
class Americans that forced even more of Americas family caregivers
into the job market, but from lower taxes and increased employer investment
in job creation (something an employer can do only when he has the capital
in his pocket to do it). Lower tax rates actually creates more tax revenue
at the local, county, State and federal levels because lower taxes leaves
more money in the hands of the small business owners who generate almost
70% of all of the jobs in America.
Yet,
the Democrats have chosen to travel the road Mondale forged in 1984 by
pledging to raise taxes if elected. Bill Clinton, who saddled the American
people with the most regressive tax increase in the history of mankind,
had the political sense to lie about it. He promised the middle class
a tax cut even though he knew he would seek a tax increase to fund Hillarys
grandiose socialist welfare schemes.
Kerry, a 4th term liberal Senator from Massachusetts,
who is trying to appear centrist by distancing himself from the socialist
rhetoric expounded by Dean and Kucinich is using a Clinton campaign ploy--suggesting
that he would not dream of touching the tax cuts Bush gave to the middle
class even though he would revoke the tax cuts to the rich who can afford
to pay more. Real Democrats, he said in a political speech
to a working class audience in Dover, New Hampshire, dont
walk away from the middle class. They dont
take away a tax credit for families struggling to raise their children,
or bring back a tax penalty for married couples
who are just starting out, or penalize teachers or waitresses by raising
taxes on the middle class. While Kerry seemed to be saying
he would not roll back the Bush tax cuts, when you watch his lips move
on both sides of his face at the same time, you realize he was saying
that he would not eliminate Bush tax credits or the elimination
of the marriage penalty on those he perceives as hard working middle
class families, which the husband of the Heinz ketchup fortune then
specifically clarified as waitresses, young couples just starting
out, and school teachers. Middle class, in Kerrys nomenclature,
appears to be a phrase that is politically interchangeable with low
income for welfare credit purposes. Kerry, and the other dead men
walking to 2004 primaries, still believe the true middle class taxpayer
needs to pay more. The question is, in the mind of those politicians,
what income level classifies you as middle class and at what income level
are you suddenly perceived as being rich?
Frankly, its pretty much open to interpretation
depending entirely on the audiences to whom they are speaking. Liberals
seem to think that the term middle class describes those with an annual
income around $35,000. The taxable rich appears, in their mind, to represent
those earning pretax incomes of $60,000 or more. Two-income families in
high-cost suburban areas around Americas largest metropolitan areas,
struggling to make ends meet on $100,000 (in order to make their $2,500+
monthly mortgage payments on their overpriced 2,000 square foot homes
as they strive to pay off student loans and, at the same time, feed and
clothe their families) are, in the view of the Democrat elitists, the
obscene rich.
Most of the Congressmen and Senators who
believe the middle class is, for tax purposes, Americas rich, are
actually part of Americas aristocratic invisible rich.
Most of them are millionaires or billionaires whose generational personal
wealth has been adroitly concealed from public scrutiny, and also adequately
shielded from the IRS through the use of tax-exempt trusts. So when these
politicians talk about making the rich pay their fair share, they mean
everyone else since their fortunes are exempt from taxation.
Moseley-Braun
and the Harlem civil rights huckster, Al Sharpton both believe the Bush
tax cuts should be repealed and the money used to refinance the welfare
entitlement programs of the Great Society.
While it is unclear why Sharpton is in the
presidential race other than to satisfy his ego (since everyone knows
he couldnt get nominated if he was the only person running), Moseley-Braun
is in the race because she desperately needs media exposure to rekindle
her public identity in Illinois. She told the Associated Press that she
would evaluate her position later this fall and decide whether
or not to continue her one-legged race for the White House. Expect
her to change the focus of her political direction to the other end of
Pennsylvania Avenue later this fall. Moseley-Braun will likely
announce her intention to seek the Senate seat held by Peter Fitzgerald
[R-IL] who
defeated her in 1998. Moseley-Braun will claim, at that time, that she
can better serve America by serving her constituents in Illinois, and
she will run like a martyr who gave up her shot at the White House for
her constituents in Illinois. Pointedly, however, it must be noted
that Moseley-Braun never truly served the people of Illinois nor did she
adequately serve the American people.
As a member of the U.S. Senate, Moseley-Braun
(who recently described herself as a fiscal conservative) voted against
the anti-terrorism bills in 1995 and again in 1996. She also voted to
cut funding to the CIA. She voted to freeze all defense spending for seven
years. When that effort failed, she voted to cut $10 billion from the
defense budget in order to divert that money to welfare entitlement programs.
She voted to cut spending on a ballistics missile defense program and
voted, in 1996, against approving any defense appropriations at all for
the year 1997.
In 1993 when she first
arrived in the Senate, Moseley-Braun voted three times to hike social
security taxes--and she voted twice to implement a Clinton plan to tax
the benefits of social security recipients. Three years later, when the
GOP tried to repeal those taxes on the elderly, Moseley-Braun voted twice
with the Democrats to keep the tax on the meager incomes of Americas
aged.
Since every parade needs a clown, and every
court a jester, someone like Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich will always
show up whenever a crowd gathers. However, even though Kucinich looks
impishly innocent, he is a very dangerous court jester. Kucinich was the
most socialist politician to join Tinseltowns Muslim-backed
Not
In Our Name, Not In My Name campaign. It was Kucinich
who coined the phrase Regime change begins at home, shortly
after the Bush Administration announced that if Saddam Hussein did not
voluntarily leave Iraq that the United States would implement a regime
change in that country. During that period when America was seeking
support from the international community for its initiative in Iraq, Kucinich
declared Americas
war games in Iraq were illegal because they were being implemented by
...an unelected president and his unelected vice president.
After the devastating losses of the Democrats
during the midterm elections, several socialist and ultraliberal websites
touted Kucinich as the Democrats best choice for 2004 because they felt
the Democrats, who were stymied by George W. Bushs popularity, were
playing me, too, with the GOP. Kucinich, whose writings are
prominently displayed on the website of the American Communist Party,
and on every communist website in the world, declared that America was
pretty even for September 11 when it bombed innocent civilians in Afghanistan.
The blood of innocent people who perished on September 11 was avenged
with the blood of innocent villagers in Afghanistan.
Kucinich, who insists that military options
are never appropriate, said he would create a Department of Peace if he
was elected. Kucinich would divert the defense
budget into the DoP to promote social justice throughout the world. Nothing,
Kucinich said, not even an event like 9-11, justifies war. In the
finest example of Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr., Kucinich
said, we can learn to confront our enemies with ahisma [unconditional
love]. I wonder if unconditional love for our enemies would have
stopped the Japanese from attacking Pearl Harbor on Dec. 7, 1941? Dennis
Kucinich makes Jimmy Carter look like an astoundingly competent president.
Kucinich and 31 of the most socialist members
of Congress filed a lawsuit to stop the Bush Administration from pulling
out of the defunct Salt II Treaty in 2001--a treaty that Russia had not
signed up to that time, nor had they ever honored. America was reducing
its nuclear missile inventory according to the Treaty, but the Soviets
continued to increase theirs. Worse yet, Salt II prevented America from
developing any type of missile defense system that would render the Soviet
missile
arsenal worthless. That was the treaty Kucinich wanted to enforce. Kucinich
also authored a bill that would ban any president from deploying a missile
shield to protect America from attacks from China, Russia, or any rogue
terrorist state.
Its
clear why Kucinich appeals to the communists and the radical environmentalists.
Hes one of them. And, because he is so far outside the mainstream
of America, he will remain the court jester of the Democratic left (who
makes the leftist extremists like Kerry and Dean appear almost mainstream).
While ambulance chaser John Edwards [D-NC]
likes to believe he is the reincarnation of the populist Bill Clinton,
Vermont governor and medical doctor, Howard Dean more closely fits the
Clinton stereotype--right down to the hyphenated wife. If he somehow got
elected he would raise taxes to a backbreaking level, and he and Judith
Steinberg, his wife, have pledged to create a universal health care system
that would make Dick Gepharts planned health care system look like
a Band-Aid on a scratch.
Dean, who almost makes Hillary Clinton look
moderate, became a sweetheart of the ultra-left in Vermont (a State known
for ultra- liberal ideologues like Patrick Leahy, political turncoat Jim
Jeffords, and communist Bernie Sanders) when he signed a bill recognizing
same sex civil unions in order to grant homosexuals and lesbians the same
marriage protections as heterosexuals in Vermont.
Dean has become the sweetheart of the liberal
media. At the present time he leads the pack in popularity, with 28% of
likely Democratic New Hampshire primary voters admitting they would vote
for him. Massachusetts Senator John Kerry followed with 25%. Former House
Minority Leader Richard Gephart controls the
endorsement of the Teamsters Union (and is close to gaining the endorsement
of the AFL-CIO), but only 6% of the New Hampshire voters have said they
will cast their votes for him. Senator Joe Lieberman, the most moderate
Democrat, would take 10% of the projected vote. Edwards trailed with 2%,
and Florida Senator Bob Graham, who is anxiously seeking the number two
slot on anyones ticket, registered 1%. Sharpton and Braun, to no
ones surprise--not even their own--were no shows.
Lieberman addressed the media at the National
Press Club in Washington on Monday, August 4. The frustrated Senator called
Howard Deans campaign ...a ticket to nowhere. Referring
to Dean, Kucinich, and Kerry, Lieberman told the assembled press that
he was ...not going to stand back and let [the Democratic Party]
be taken over by people who will take [it] back to the wilderness.
Speaking specifically of Kerry, Lieberman said the Massachusetts senator
was a big spending liberal who was out-of-touch with the realities of
today.
John Edwards the millionaire liability lawyer
from North Carolina, like Florida Senator Bob Graham, is in the race only
because they had enough personal wealth to jump into the fray. Neither
has the staying power to run the course. Edwards, who is simply muddying
the water for Lieberman, has not been able to get his campaign off the
ground. Most of the political pundits who are watching the Democratic
walkathon, believe Edwards and Bob Graham will be the first casualties.
(The first to be forced out will likely be Sharpton and Braun since neither
of them are viewed by anyone as real candidates anyway. Kerry wants them
out because the support from Americas black community would go to
him.) While Kerry feels that Dennis Kucinchs supporters would likewise
back him if the Ohio socialist was not in the race, it is more likely
that the more radical element would back Dean--or Ralph Nader when the
Green Party candidate announces his own candidacy next spring (even though
the Democrats are trying to buy him off since they believe Nader cost
Gore the Election of 2000).
Even though Deans most recent fundraiser
netted his campaign $400 thousand, there has not been an oasis of contributions
flooding any of the Democratic
candidates. It is the amount of contributions from
outside sources that indicate to the media which of the candidates are
viable and which are not. George W. Bush, for example, has already
amassed a $200 million war chest for his reelection campaign. (His campaign
war chest in 2000 was $108 million.) The size of Bushs war chest
tells the media boys and girls that the president is all but unbeatable.
For any Democrat to win in 2004, Bush has to fall on his picarad all by
himself.
When Edwards entered the race, his spinmeisters
suggested that the Senator had the personal wealth needed to launch a
serious run for the White House without any special interest money. Thats
good, since other than money from lawyers groups, Edwards
well has pretty much run dry, leading to media speculation that by January
Edwards would be out of the race. The Edwards Campaign insisted
on July 25 that would not happen, and that the Senator was ...in
this for the duration. Defending his lack of contributors, Edwards
spokeswoman Jennifer Palmieri said it would take some time for someone
...who does not have high name recognition to raise money,
adding that ...its too early to suggest that some of the candidates
should get out of the race.
Gephart understands Palmieris statement
very well since hes been suffering from that same problem since
1988. Neither man seems to understand that you dont
become president because you want the job, you become president because
David Rockefeller and a handful of powerful, all but invisible transnational
businessmen and bankers want you to have the job. The national election
every four years is merely a required formality that makes the process
appear constitutional. The campaign season is an elaborately contrived
sham that was designed to give the illusion that we, the people, pick
the man who will lead the nation. We dont.
The current slate of contenders dont
seem to realize that there must be an anointing before any
coronation can take place. The leadership of the Democratic Party knows
all of the current slate of wanabees are virtually dead men walking because
the key players for the Democratic nomination have not yet entered the
race.
The fact that the big money boys havent
flooded any of the current slate of candidates with money should have
been a clue to all of them that the anointed candidates had
not jet joined the fray. Clearly, that fact was not lost of John Kerry
who has been trying to narrow the field by forcing Edwards, Gephart and
Lieberman out of the race because he is convinced their supporters would
flock to his campaign, giving him an edge over Howard Dean who is the
closest thing to a front-runner in the Democratic walkathon to the convention.
Kerrys been in national politics long
enough to know that if he can sprint far enough ahead--and hold the lead
through the early primaries--he will make it hard for
late bloomers to enter the fray. Kerry, of course, is expecting former
Vice President Al Gore, Jr. who lost a photo finish election in 2000,
to enter the fray. And, it may very well be that, in the end, Gore will
do just that--even though he has already privately sampled the waters
of the money well and he knows, like the other announced candidates,
that sufficient contributions from legal sources will be tough to raise.
Nevertheless, Gore is the first of the three
final candidates who is expected to join the Campaign of 2004 later this
fall or shortly after the first of the year--particularly if Bushs
star becomes tarnished by an economic, political or military misstep.
If Gore joins the campaign (his major speech on Iraq fueling
speculation that he will jump into the fray soon in an effort to diffuse
Hillarys plans to do the same), he will select Bob Graham as his
running mate. Gore is still convinced he lost the Election of 2000 in
Florida and not in Tennessee--which repudiated him; or in Arkansas, Clintons
home state, which also repudiated him. Had Gore won either of those States
earlier in the evening of November 5, 2000, by the time America went to
bed that night, Gore would have been the 43rd President of the United
States regardless what happened in Florida.
The
liberal money will be forced to back Gore if Hillary doesnt jump
into the fray because, frankly, neither Dean or Kerry can win and the
Democrats know it. As Gore has already discovered, all of the meaningful
campaign money to date has been sucked into non-candidate Hillarys
coffers. Thats why none of it, in amounts needed to sustain a winning
campaign, have found their way into the war chests of the Walking Dead.
Hillary is not anxious to jump into the
fray in 2004 because if she loses, she will join the Walking Dead and
become vulnerable in 2006--particularly if Rudy Guiliani reenters the
race for the US Senate (something he has to do in order to position himself
for his own run for the roses in 2008).
Hillary would much rather wait for 2008
since that will be a safer presidential contest for the Democrats. Bush
cant run and Dick Cheneys health is not good enough to tackle
the rigors of a tough election campaign as the presidential candidate.
Hillary knows if she runs in 2004 and loses,
she will have lost her only chance to win the presidency. The Clinton
Era will end and she will remain Senator Clinton forever--unless the climate
in New York changes and the voters realize that there are fewer jobs in
New York because Bill and Hillary Clinton pushed NAFTA through Congress
and Bill Clinton, knowing NAFTA was a jobs-drain bill with a revolving
door that allowed former American products back into the country without
tariffs, signed it into law anyway.
If
Hillary makes the leap into the race--which she has to do if she ever
expects a shot at the White House, she will have to attract the undecided
20% of the electorate called the Reagan Democrats. They are the patriotic
blue collar dues-paying union working stiffs who vote their paychecks
first and the American flag second. By herself, Hillary will never pull
that vote from George W. Bush. She is antigun, antifamily and, most of
all, shes a strident anti-national defense globalist.
Hillary who, as a presidential candidate,
needs to be viewed as a symbol of patriotism to win, has proudly worn
the globalist label squarely in the middle of her forehead for the past
decade for all the liberals to see and admire. While Dennis Kucinich thinks
a communist can win the presidency, Hillary is smart enough to know that
the American people want their presidents draped in red, white and blue--not
just red.
Because she and Bill successfully duped
enough of the people over the past decade to win three elections (two
for the White House and one for the US Senate) Hillary knows if she can
fool 50.1% of the people, she will win the White House.
If Bush doesnt stumble hard enough
for that to happen, Democratic strategists are prepared to hire
a third party candidate who can pull the Reagan Democrat votes from Bush.
As Bill Clinton discovered when he ran against Bush-41, you can steal
the White House with less than 49% of the vote if you get the right man
to run against both of the primary party candidates. The right man,
of course, must pull more
votes from your opponent than he pulls from you.
In Hillarys case, former NATO commander
Gen. Wesley Clark is the right man. If she is forced to run
in 2004--and she will--she will use Clark in one of two ways.
If George W. Bushs falls on--or can
be adroitly impaled with--his Iraqi policy picard by the Democrats on
Capitol Hill or by the media, or if the jobless rate climbs much higher
and the economy nosedives, Hillary will use Gen. Clark as her patriotic
running mate--just as draft dodger Bill Clinton aligned himself with pro-military
Al Gore (who was one of only two or three politicians sons who were
actually in Vietnam). If, on the other hand, Bushs star continues
to shine--or is at least not tarnished enough to cause his fall from grace--or
if Hillary is forced to cut a deal with one of the current candidates
to secure the nomination, she may need to use Clark to pose as a disgruntled
patriotic Democratic centrist who will publicly denounce the
liberals in the Democratic Party and run as an independent
third party candidate to pull the conservative Democratic union votes
away from George W. Bush just as Ross Perot did against Bush-41 in 1992
and Bob Dole in 1996--and as the Democratic strategists did in 1960 when
they used Dixiecrat Harry Byrd to keep the anti-Catholic Democrats from
voting for Richard Nixon.
Gen. Wesley Clark is the ideal politicians
soldier--particularly if the politician is a liberal globalist, since
Clark is both. For that reason Clark appeals to Hillary.
Clark became a media sweetheart during the
Serbian war when the Clinton Administration joined the European Union
to support the Albanian Muslim terrorists against the Orthodox Christians
of Serbia in order to shatter Slobodan Milosevics totalitarian grip
on the Balkans.
Gen. Clark, who was sarcastically referred
to as the Supreme Being by his underlings, has also been described
by his subordinates as a vain, pompous, political brown-noser. Privately,
those under him believed the general was the ideal poster child for everything
that is wrong with the General Officer Corp of the US military. One army
colonel (who served under Clark as a major when Clark commanded the 3rd
Brigade, 4th Infantry Division) described Clark as a man Who
regards each and every one of his subordinates as a potential threat to
his [own] career. Where Clark was always suspicious of the motives
of his junior officers, he was arrogantly contemptuous of the enlisted
men who served under him. Clark was disliked by everyone under him and
he was contemptuously used as a willing pawn for personal gain by those
above him. His subordinates at Fort Irwin, California nicknamed Clark
Section Leader Six because of his obsessive-compulsive micro-management
style.
In 1994 when Clark was a major general seeking
his third star, he was scheduled to participate in a war game exercise
known as the Battle Command Training Program. Clarks opponent was
a general known for his tactical prowess--and the fact that he routinely
demolished the forces which opposed him during the war games.
Defense Secretary William Perry reportedly
mentioned to the right people under him that the President
would be disappointed if Clark lost the exercise since Clark
was up for a third star. The forces of Clarks opponent were mysteriously
cut by 50%, assuring that not even the most brilliant military tactician
in the world could win with the cards stacked so badly against him. For
that reason Clark, who supposedly employed mediocre, ill-conceived and
outmoded textbook tactics, was still able to overcome the weaker force
of his opponent by sheer numbers. Bill Clinton rewarded the tactical genius
with his third star a few weeks later.
To the Clinton White House, it wasnt
how well the generals played the war game that mattered, it was how well
they played the inside-the-beltway parlor game of political butt-kissing.
And Clark was a player who came to Washington with knee pads and puckered
lips.
Because the Clintons were so anti-military
it never occurred to them that the purpose of the Battle Command Training
Program is to test the strategic and tactical planning skills of the senior
grade and general officers who will assume command of Americas fighting
forces abroad, and to determine how well they are able to strategize under
fire. The National Training Center was designed to test the commanders
ability to execute his plans under fire (which shows their
command talents as well).
The antiwar hippies who ascended on the
White House in 1993 and assumed control of the American military believed
the term civilian control of the military meant since they
were finally in charge, they could manipulate the hated American military
machine to best serve the interests of socialist pacifists who never understood
that the best deterrent to war is a strong, unbeatable military.
When Clark assumed command of the National
Training Center in Fort Irwin, California (the militarys most advanced
training center for command officers), he discovered a new career dilemma.
Clarks native troops, using unconventional tactics,
were supposed to surprise and humiliate the visiting opposing
forces (who were at Fort Irwin to be trained in unconventional warfare
in order to prepare for unconventional hostilities when they came under
actual fire from guerilla forces). Clark realized that some of the senior
general officers whose troops were engaged by Clarks unconventional
forces at Fort Irwin might resent being humiliated in the mock battles.
Some of them, Clark also realized, were senior enough that they could
help his career--or, if they were resentful enough at being humiliated
by Clarks troops--damage his chances for future promotion.
To incur the gratitude of certain key generals,
Clarks troops were forced to lose the engagements with the troops
of visiting generals just to make the generals appear more adept at developing
strategies to counter unexpected guerilla tactics. This practice by Clark
(although expedient for his career) actually endangers the troops since
those soldiers would not be adequately trained to handle real-time unconventional
situations they encountered in the real world of guerilla warfare.
But, those were precisely the qualities
the Clintons sought in their generals--loyalty to their superiors was
far more important than their ability to perform their job. For that reason
once again, Clark appeals to Hillary.
What also appeals to her--and to the Democratic hierarchy as well--is
that Gen. Wesley Clark is intelligent, articulate, and he will come across
to those who dont know his political credentials, as an honest,
patriotic soldier who headed NATO, won the war in the Serbia--and hates
liberals.
Gen. Wesley Clark is the third Democratic
non-candidate who will pop up as a player early next year--only Clark
may, or may not, show up as a Democrat. Since Hillary must engage in guerilla
warfare to win, she will select the former commander of the armys
guerilla warfare training center to help her win the White House.
|
|