Introducing the next President of the United States: God help us if I am right!

I am not going to beat around the bush and just come right out and say it. Hillary Rodham Clinton will be the next President of the United States. Hey, I am moaning and groaning with you, for I definitely do not want to see this happen. I think Sen. Clinton is one of the most dangerous politicians to our country and that her presidency would be a complete disaster wrapped in a European Socialistic style domestic policy and a complete appeasement foreign policy approach to dealing with our Islamic fascist terrorist enemies.

Interestingly enough most of my friends and colleagues who follow politics as closely as I do are in complete disagreement with me and will call me a complete dope for even saying that Sen. Clinton has a chance. Although most believe the democratic nomination is hers for the taking, most in her own party doesn’t even believe she can win the general election claiming she is too liberal, too polarizing, male voters will never vote for her, she has to much baggage to tote to the White House…She is too…Clinton.

However, what seems to be even more interesting is the reaction of the liberal mainstream press and democratic pundits who, with some exceptions, are pretty negative about Sen. Clinton’s chances and state the usual conclusions about her around the table: She can't be elected in a general election; men aren't willing to vote for a woman like her; women don't think much of her marriage - or her, for staying in it; which red state could she possibly carry? What swing voter would she convince? So, almost everyone thinks that a Hillary Clinton ticket is a loser but me.

Let’s start with the idea of her being to “Clinton” to win. This does not actually hurt Sen. Clinton’s chances of wining. A recent poll shows that Americans have around a 46 percent favorable view of Bill Clinton and democrat voters hold around a 78 percent favorable view of the former President. A lot of those voters believe that a Hillary Clinton presidency would mirror that of her husbands even though it would be very different.

There are many fundamental differences between Bill and Hillary. One Bill is extremely creative, constantly coming up with new issues to talk about. Hillary rarely has a new idea, but specializes in activism, taking on the roll of using talking points from her advisors and the party.

Bill cares deeply about being popular and loved by all. Hillary seeks popularity to get elected and then puts her nose in the air as she carries out her socialistic agenda.

Bill viewed a critic as a potential convert whom he hoped to charm to his side. Hillary has a naughty and nice list with a plot for revenge for the naughty and a demand for complete loyalty and silence from the nice as she tries to destroy her enemies. Hillary Clinton is a Democratic version of Richard Nixon when it comes to her enemies.

Bill is a moderate, who seeks change and will raise taxes when he feels necessary to do so. Hillary is a devoted European style socialist, who believes government should take much more of the national income to provide more government services and benefits. In other words she praises the idea to raise taxes and redistribute the income.

So, as you can see a Hillary Clinton presidency would definitely not be a mirror of Bill’s but in politics reality does not matter as much as perception does on Election Day.

As far as Hillary Clinton being too liberal and polarizing with to much baggage to tote to the White House, while that argument seems plausible, it sure hasn’t hurt her in the state of New York. Then again it is New York.

Maybe the political pundits and the so called experts in the press are right about Sen. Clinton, but I don’t think so.

They certainly were not right about Ronald Reagan in 1978 when he announced his campaign for the White House for the 1980 election. No one took Reagan’s chances of winning the White House in 1980 seriously except himself and the devoted “Goldwater Republicans” who handed him the nomination. The Washington insiders and the press wrote him off as too conservative, too old and just a movie actor.

Conservatives and liberals alike are going to blast me for even bringing up Ronald Reagan and Hillary Clinton in the same sentence as a comparison between the two but the situations between 1978 and now are similar.

No doubt Reagan will certainly be a hard act for Hillary to follow. Reagan was able to capture the sensibilities of Main Street America and use his charisma and uplifting vision of America to appeal to the Middle in a world that was going terribly wrong. This earned him a stunningly decisive victory in 1980 and 60 percent of the vote in 1984. There is no doubt that Hillary Clinton is more of a polarizing figure than what Reagan was, but we live in a much more polarized time. Just like Reagan though, Hillary has the devoted followers of a die-hard grass roots effort of her party that will give her the democratic nomination. There has not been a candidate since Reagan, with the exception of incumbents and vice presidents, that has had the nomination of there party in the bag this long before the election. Just like Reagan, the charisma gap between her and any challengers is palpable.

Yes, there is Barrak Obama, who is riding one hell of a wave, and no offense to Obama, but he is very inexperienced who has never been in a real campaign or political fight. He will not win against a veteran politician like Hillary Clinton.

Also, all the available data suggests that Hillary Clinton can win and that she may not appear to be too liberal to win. In a recent Gallup poll the question was asked If Hillary Rodham Clinton were to run for president in 2008, how likely would you be to vote for her –very likely, somewhat likely, not very likely or not at all likely?

Very Likely 29%
Somewhat Likely 24%
Not at all likely 40%
No opinion 1%

So, if you take the 29 percent and the 24 percent you have a 53 percent majority that says they might vote for Hillary Clinton. I can hear my friends already claiming, well yeah, but that is before the conservatives unleash the attack dogs and bring out her scandalous past.

The thing is the conservative attack dogs have already been unleashed. Let’s face it, conservatives, like myself, have been going after Hillary Clinton with a full arsenal for 12 years now. What could she possibly have drugged out of her closet that has not already seen the light? Hillary Clinton is in a similar position that President George W. Bush found himself in 2004. Democrats had attacked Bush so much for four years that the voters had already taken his past into consideration by the time 2004 came around. Any additional attacks never penetrated the surface. This is why conservatives must be careful about attacking Hillary hard and instead focus on issues.

When you look further into the poll numbers you will also find that 30 percent of voters polled consider Hillary a moderate, while 9 percent consider her a conservative. Now, I don’t know where they found the 9 percent that describe her as conservative (San Francisco maybe?), but the point is that almost 40 percent of those polled doesn’t tag her liberal, and as I said earlier in politics reality does not matter as much as perception, making the argument that she is too liberal to win obsolete.

Then there is the electoral map issue. Some claim that Hillary can’t win in red states. What red state can Hillary win in 2008? Well, I don’t know for sure. Perhaps the better question might be which red state will the republicans lose? The Republican Party is going and has been going through a huge split between the Reagan conservative base and the present moderate part of the party. The Reagan conservative base of the party has been leaving the party for some time. Many voting for third party candidates or just not voting at all.

It has been going on for a while, since the 90s actually, and it helped President Bill Clinton get elected twice with less than 50 percent of the vote both times. If Ross Perot would have never run for president, Bill Clinton would have never been elected president.

The conservative base of the Republican Party tried to send a message to the republicans during the midterm election. They tried to tell the Republican Party to get back to their “conservative roots” by either voting libertarian or not voting at all. However, so far, it seems the message has not been received or has fallen on deaf ears. If the Republican Party does not find a true conservative candidate for 2008 and nominates John McCain or Rudy Giuliani they risk the same faith they suffered in the midterm election. However, at the same time, there has never been a better fundraiser or energizer of the base for the Republican Party than Hillary Clinton. Just writing this column makes me want to pull out my checkbook for the republicans.

Here is the main reason that Hillary Clinton will be the next President of the United States. There are not enough males to oppose her. Yes, it is true, Hillary Clinton is not popular amongst males, especially white males. Recent polls show that among registered white males Hillary Clinton gets 29 percent of the vote. However when you add minorities into the mix Hillary Clinton gets around 38 percent of all registered male voters. Still a low number and no candidate has ever won the presidency without winning the male vote. So how does Hillary Clinton win with only 38 percent of the male vote? Easy, Hillary doesn’t need the male vote to win. I know…you think I am a complete dope! I told you that you would.

In our male-dominated political world, where pundits and the so called experts speak mainly to one another and confirm each other’s wisdom, we do not fully appreciate or understand the full power of a woman candidate.

Remember that women make up 52 percent of the population in the United States, 54 percent of all registered voters are woman and they show up to the polls to vote. Women usually make up 53 percent to 55 percent of the voter turnout on Election Day and they vote democrat.

Since the 90’s women have voted democrat at an overwhelmingly higher rate than men. In 1996 women favored Bill Clinton over Bob Dole by 16 percentage points and in 2000 women favored Al Gore over George W. Bush by 11 percentage points. Even in 2004 women still favored Democratic Presidential Candidate John Kerry, but only by 3 percentage points, not the usual +10 point advantage.

What is even more significant than those numbers above is how single women vote. Single women especially, single mothers tend to vote overwhelmingly democrat. In 1996 single women favored Bill Clinton 62 percent – 28 percent over Bob Dole. In 2000 Single women favored Al Gore 63 percent – 32 percent over George W. Bush. In 2004 single women favored John Kerry 63 percent – 36 percent over President George W. Bush. When you poll just single mothers the numbers are even higher for the democratic candidates. (If you care to understand why read my column: Why the Democrat Party loves single mothers. Archived nov 2004).

There is even more good news for Hillary Clinton. Single women make up the fastest growing voting block today. Nineteen million single women voted in 2000 and 27 million came out in 2004. If a woman runs for president, it stands to reason that such turnout will rise still further. If single women vote in proportion to their share of the national population, they could account for over 32 million votes in 2008. Since women who are divorced, widowed, or never married vote Democrat by a two-to-one margin the single women, especially the single mom vote will be crucial to Hillary’s candidacy.

A lot of single moms in society are disproportionately in poverty, burdened by the need for good daycare and schools, often stuck in minimum-wage jobs. Most aren’t interested and do not follow politics, but then here comes Hillary Clinton, a woman who can relate and capture the feelings of their daily struggles. A woman Democrat who can identify and focus on their needs, suddenly Hillary Clinton becomes their champion. Many of these women will come out in droves to register and vote for their short term economical interests and participate in the political process for the first time.

There may be something that may hurt Hillary Clinton’s chances from reaching the White House and that is “angry rhetoric.” Party activist love her and admire her for this, but successful presidential candidates learn to calm down the “vast right-wing conspiracy” outbursts. During her campaign for the Senate in New York Hillary was able to charm independent farmers in upstate New York and small town republicans by running an upbeat campaign. Clearly a dress rehearsal for the presidential campaign, but when Hillary Clinton gets on the national stage; she seems to have a break down and fall into attack mode and seems to hold a Nixonian paranoia feeling with her.

Hillary Clinton needs to understand that she has paid her dues to the Democratic Party, and she doesn't have to prove herself through angry tirades and personal attacks anymore. From now on, she only needs follow the Reagan plan, a fellow Illinois native, who campaigned with positive rhetoric and a smile on his face, trusting that the work he'd done cultivating his base would pay off, and that he needed mainly to reassure independent-minded voters.

When the media tried to bait Reagan into going negative by asking why he'd abandoned the party of his youth, he invariably smiled, cocked his head, and gave the line. “I didn't leave the Democrat Party,” Reagan would say. “The Democratic Party left me.”

Surprisingly in her youth, Hillary Rodham was a Goldwater Republican. She could use the same line in reverse. It should remind swing voters why they are looking, once again, at casting their vote with a candidate named Clinton. Of course it would all be a scam, but in politics reality is not as imprtant as perception.