Hillary's dilemma: fight and lose or wait and win

The Sunday Telegraph ^ | December 22, 2002 | Julian Coman

[MadIvan]

A third of New York Democrats are urging her to run. Polls suggest that she is the only candidate capable of defeating President George W. Bush at the ballot box. Among a growing number of her supporters, only one question matters: can Hillary Clinton be persuaded to rescue her party in the 2004 presidential race?  

Mrs Clinton has insisted that she intends to see out her term as New York senator, which ends in 2006, before possibly running for the presidency in 2008. But following Al Gore's announcement last week that he will not run for the presidency a second time, her name has repeatedly cropped up in polls, alongside expected candidates such as Joe Lieberman, Mr Gore's running mate in 2000, and John Kerry, the Massachusetts senator from the party's liberal wing.  

According to one Gallup poll, if Mrs Clinton keeps out of the race, Mr Lieberman and Mr Kerry are neck-and-neck as front-runners for the Democratic nomination, each scoring more than 20 per cent among party supporters. But if she decides to enter, her rivals slip to less than 15 per cent, while Mrs Clinton can count on the support of a formidable 41 per cent of Democrats. A separate survey in New York showed that 37 per cent of Democrats in her home state hope that she will seek the nomination.  

As her party prepares to take on a president still enjoying 63 per cent approval ratings, the kind of popularity Mrs Clinton currently enjoys is beginning to create a momentum of its own. After a humiliating set of results in November's mid-term elections, when Democrats lost control of the Senate and lost ground in the House of Representatives, a respectable showing in the next presidential elections has become a party imperative.  

Mrs Clinton is heartily loathed, however, by a sizeable section of the American population, who associate her with strident feminism and the scandal-ridden Clinton White House. But in New York, her approval ratings have consistently risen since she became a senator, and when it comes to name-recognition and charismatic appeal, the Democrats have no one to compare.  

"The conventional wisdom says that whoever runs in 2004 will lose to Bush," said one senior Democrat, "so if Hillary is wise, she won't run until 2008. But even if she only gives Bush a scare, that may be more than anyone else can do, and then she can run again, with the backing of a grateful party."  

The veteran American pollster John Zogby believes that Mrs Clinton's declared intention to stay out of the 2004 race should be treated with some scepticism. "There is not a doubt in my mind that she will run for president: in 2004 if she sees a chance, certainly in 2008," he said. "What she has done in New York, where a majority is now on her side, she could do in any state. Don't underestimate her."  

Last week, after Mr Gore's announcement, Mrs Clinton's spokesman, Philippe Reines, said: "Nothing has changed; she's going to serve out her six-year Senate term." But there are signs that Mrs Clinton is already laying the political groundwork for a presidential bid. In the Senate, she has been conspicuously supportive of most of President Bush's priorities in the War on Terror, voting for a resolution authorising war against Iraq if the White House judges that diplomacy has failed to disarm Saddam.  

Mrs Clinton also sent a letter recently to Tom Ridge, the head of the Homeland Security Department, calling for tougher anti-terrorist measures. For good measure, she has dropped the use of her maiden name, Rodham, which was seen as a feminist affectation by much of Middle America.  

If she does run, Mrs Clinton will be able to count on the political skills and close support of the last American politician to take on a Bush and win. In a recent speech to the Democratic Leadership Council, Bill Clinton, who defeated George Bush Sr in 1992, said that the Democrats needed to "strengthen their public image". The remark was taken by many as a thinly veiled comment on the low political profile of such potential presidential candidates as Mr Lieberman, Mr Kerry and another possible presidential contender, John Edwards, a senator from North Carolina.  

"The Clintons have done it before," said the Democratic Party official. "The way it looks right now, only their name could even things up at the polls."  

In 1991, Mrs Clinton persuaded her husband to run for the White House against George Bush Sr, despite doubts that the race could be won following the success of the first Gulf war. Eleven years later, with the Democrats at their lowest ebb since then, the roles in the Clinton household may be about to be reversed.  

[MadIvan]

This article extrapolates far too much from New York's polity and applies it to the American electorate as a whole. Hillary is too shrill and divisive a figure to win the Presidency - and furthermore she has a tendency to pick on weak targets, choosing a liberal state in which to run for the Senate, etc. President Bush is hardly a weak target - and he has outwitted the Democrats at every turn. I suspect she will wait until 2008 and hope for weaker prey.

Regards, Ivan

[MadIvan]

Bump!

[Voltage]

I urge here to run! She could go into the book of records for not taking a single state!

Wasn't it George McGovern who currently has the records with just 1 state?

[Jhoffa_]

I dunno, I mean two years is a long time.. and it's an eternity in politics. Look at what a couple of weeks did to Lott? Remember how x41 was supposed to have a guranteed second term?

I think it's premature to cast either Dubya or Hill in the catbird seat for 2004.

[Jhoffa_]

Wasn't it George McGovern who currently has the records with just 1 state?

LOL! You're kidding?

And every idiot liberal on the planet is "proud" to have supported him, to hear them talk now anyway.

(LOL!)

[LdSentinal]

Polls suggest that she is the only candidate capable of defeating President George W. Bush at the ballot box

What poll shows this?

[HoundsTooth_BP]

I would not urge her to run. She is pure evil, but many are fooled by the Clintons, especially Hillary.

[2nd Amendment]

I think she would take D.C., Massachusetts, California, and possibly New York.

[speekinout]

The clintoons reliably get a large turnout of Blacks. They are about 13% of the eligible voters, and since usually only about 45% of all voters go to the polls, that is a sizable number.
But last Nov., appearances by either of the clintoons brought out larger numbers of white Conservatives and Independents. Most of the candidates they supported lost.

If hill runs, I think there will be a lot more voters going to the polls than we've ever seen. She is the most divisive politician on the scene today.

[artsie]

I am not so sure she can afford to wait. She has the money man in place, McAuliffe, she forced Gore out ;), she is up for re-election to the Senate in 2006. If Rudy or Pataki take her on she could lose and poof there goes her chance for 08.She can't risk a Dem winning the WH in 04 again poof go her chances. Can she risk a star up and comer? She is not aging well. Therefore, I hold my breath and think she will make a charge in 04.

[Cicero]

Normally, Hillary Rodham Clinton wouldn't have a chance. But as we've seen before, the clintons are willing to do anything to get elected, and I mean anything. That means complete control of the press, blackmailing of campaign contributors, and accidents happening to inconvenient people. Plus fraud and corruption on a massive scale.

I'm one of those who doesn't think she just has 900 outdated FBI files. She has the entire contents of the national security database, if I know anything about the way she operates--including the information she needs to blackmail CIA and FBI agents into giving her fresh updates.

We've had presidential corruption before, under Ulysses S. Grant and Warren G. Harding, but we've never seen professional criminals like the clintons in the White House before.

It isn't safe to underestimate her.

[Imal]

We could only hope that the 'rats would trot out Hillary as their 2004 presidential candidate.

This Julian Coman is pushing some very wishful thinking, and anyone who trusts an agenda-driven charlatan like John Zogby may just as well believe in the tooth fairy.

File this one under "speculative fiction".

[optimistically_conservative]

The worst thing about her running is whether she wins or loses, the campaign will be MEAN, UGLY and EXHAUSTING for America.

It will be GW's 2d term, so if he wins - who cares, but it may make it tough in 2008 when Hitlary points to the ugly tactics used by Republicans in the 2004 campaign and the new guy is saying "Its the issues - Stupid."

[HoundsTooth_BP]

(We've had presidential corruption before, under Ulysses S. Grant and Warren G. Harding, but we've never seen professional criminals like the clintons in the White House before.

It isn't safe to underestimate her.)

I agree 100%. I am afraid that the statement that Mrs. Clinton said about Republicans which was played all over the communist news tonight and this morning is more proof that she has presidential ambitions in 2004.

[Jim Noble]

>>Mrs Clinton has insisted that she intends to see out her term as New York senator<<

BUT she is a chronic and habitual liar...

[Democrap]

OH please run Hillary for the children and us rats.

Democrap's home page

[VRWC For Truth]

It isn't safe to underestimate her.

Bump. The 'Toons are cockroaches.

[LdSentinal]

This Julian Coman is pushing some very wishful thinking, and anyone who trusts an agenda-driven charlatan like John Zogby may just as well believe in the tooth fairy.

Zogby loves her for her "Jew Bastard" comment and after she hugged Arafart's wife after the latter said Israelis gassed Palestinian children.

[11B3]

Yeah, she's going to run in 2004. If she wins - no doubt by stealing the election, I'd be willing to bet we'd have an armed revolution as a result. (If the DoD didn't decide on a coup.) Rather like Russia in '91.

[Arpege92]

If Hillary waits until 2008 then the Republicans should encourage Condoleezza Rice to run.