Hillary Says No to Run With Kerry

Washington Times ^ | Saturday, April 17, 2004 | Amy Fagan

[canuck_conservative]

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton yesterday said she will turn down the vice presidential candidate slot if it's offered to her by Democratic presidential candidate Sen. John Kerry. Mrs. Clinton was asked in an NBC "Today" show interview what she would do if Mr. Kerry, Massachusetts Democrat, asks her to be his running mate. "Well, I don't think that will happen," Mrs. Clinton told Katie Couric in the interview, taped earlier this week and aired yesterday. "I've made it clear I don't want that to happen, and that my answer will be no if it does happen. I'm not ... I'm not prepared to do that." Political strategists had varying opinions of what her remarks mean. "People are looking for hidden motives every time she opens her mouth," complained Democratic analyst Donna Brazile, who said the remarks are consistent with Mrs. Clinton's stated goal of running for another Senate term. "[T]hat's where she's going to keep her focus," Ms. Brazile said. Others said Mrs. Clinton, who was elected in 2000 as the junior senator from New York, has her sights set on the presidency, and her remarks yesterday back that up. "My sense is that she doesn't like to play second fiddle to anyone and you're seeing that in this decision," said Republican strategist David Winston. "She's a pretty ambitious, focused person. I'm not sure that vice president is what she views as her goal." Mr. Winston said he assumes Mrs. Clinton, "would identify the best situation for her [to run for president] is an open-seat presidency, and therefore she's looking at 2008." Under this scenario, Mr. Kerry would lose this year's election and Mr. Bush would be leaving a two-term presidency in 2008, so there'd be two new candidates vying for the office

[Minuteman23]

"People are looking for hidden motives every time she opens her mouth," complained Democratic analyst Donna Brazile...

That's like a zookeeper complaining that people keep noticing the zebra's stripes.

[mtntop3]

Don't know if Kerry's ego is too big for Hillary addition - but with Hillary, comes Bill....

There would be two people in the vp's Blair House: Hillary and Bill. Bill no acceptum a secondary role - Kerry knows this. Bill obviously considers Kerry an inferior - starting with social class/privilege/accomplishment aspects.

Bill knows Kerry for what he is. And Kerry knows Bill for what he is. Sending Bill to the UN would not solve the problem. Bill would still try to run the government through surrogates. If Kerry goes for Hillary, it will be a last, desperate resort.

[Mo1]

Yes. The biggest clue to me that a "Toriceli" is in the makings are the words "presumptive Democratic candidate". When has that ever been said before?

To be honest, I don't recall .. but that didn't catch my attention because back in the Primaries when Kerry was ahead, he would never call himself the leading candidate .. I think he did that so the media would keep going after Howard Dean

What has caught my attention was that none of the other Dem Candidates have "Dropped" out .. instead they have all withdrawn from campaigning

I don't remember candidates doing that before

[ALOHA RONNIE]

.


.."IS it SAFE?" = HILLARY on Senate Armed Services Committee..

http://www.TheAlamoFILM.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=629


.

[ALOHA RONNIE]

.

"My husband was obssessed with fighting Terrorism and Al Qaeda" =

September 11, 2001


This statement was the ONLY reason why HILLARY went on TV last night ...to play to the 9/11 Commission Hearings.

.

[Mo1]

This statement was the ONLY reason why HILLARY went on TV last night ...to play to the 9/11 Commission Hearings.

hmmm .. worried about something?

[DoughtyOne]

The rule of thumb on her husband was, if he said something, you knew exactly the opposite was true. Pardon my perception, but I'll be darned if she wasn't micro-managing his every move. Therefore it's my assessment that whatever she says, exactly the opposite is true.

She could care less if he was unfaithful.
She had absolutely nothing to do with Chelsea's upbringing.
She is weighing very heavily the opportunity to be on a ticket this fall.

[68 grunt]

Any words that come out of any democrats mouth are a lie. They have no credibility with people who do not believe liars. This is particularly true of the traitorous xlintons.

[Archie Bunker on steroids]

finished so she and he can spend more time together at the movies and going out to diner

Not being with Bill hasn't stopped this Hindenburg covered in dead salmon from going out to eat.

She's going to look like Robert Earl Hughes by 2008

[boris]

I actually believe she voted for Bush. If Gore had won, she would have had to wait until 2008 for sure.

My two scenarios:

1. The convention is rigged to 'deadlock' somehow and she is 'drafted' and 'reluctanly' accepts the nomination "for the good of the Party." I realize this is more difficult with Dean's self-destruction...but still...

2. She accepts the VP slot and very soon an unfortunate 'accident' befalls the President (assuming the Dems win).

--Boris

[hflynn]

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton yesterday said she will turn down the vice presidential candidate slot if it's offered to her by Democratic presidential candidate Sen. John Kerry. Mrs. Clinton was asked in an NBC "Today" show interview what she would do if Mr. Kerry, Massachusetts Democrat, asks her to be his running mate. "Well, I don't think that will happen," Mrs. Clinton told Katie Couric in the interview, taped earlier this week and aired yesterday. "I've made it clear I don't want that to happen, and that my answer will be no if it does happen. I'm not ... I'm not prepared to do that." Political strategists had varying opinions of what her remarks mean.

What it means is Hillary in Clinton speak is Hillary has eliminated 1 person (John Kerry) from offering her the Veep slot.

[CIB-173RDABN]

Hillary lies, she is running now.

[Mo1]

Yep .. IF the dems have a plan to replace Kerry, that is most likely what they will do

[Lucky2]

I don't think hillary wants to be anyone's number 2 (even though she is a number 2 in my book)! Plus I think she knows she's hitching her fat wagon to a loser with kerry. She'll wait to 2008 and then pounce.

[mwl1]

People want to be #2 on the ticket (even a losing ticket) because it gives them name recognition and front-runner status four years later. Hillary doesn't need name recognition. Unfortunately, she's a household word.

Hillary wants the field clear for 2008... no incumbent, and no prospective RAT contender in her way. Kerry must go down, and take a loser as VP with him... which means the VP will be Gephardt, not Edwards. Edwards is a threat to Hillary in 2008, Gephardt is not.

Hillary also cannot afford to be on the bottom of the ticket in 2004, because when Kerry loses, she does not want the blame (even partially) attributed to her being on the ticket.

This dangerous woman is determined to be President, and she is taking every prudent and logical step in getting there... no risks, no shortcuts.

[Mo1]

The Torricelli scenario works so well for Hillary, because she does not want to go through a questioning period from late 2003 to Nov 2004. Instead, she would just be a candidate for two months, Sept and Oct. 2004. She can fend off the few serious questions she would be asked by a fawning press and answer only the underhand softballs lobbed her way

Ok .. since we think the Dems could pull a stunt like this ... what exactly are the rules for replacing a candidate in the late stages of a general election for President of the US?

We know that Kerry can be replaced at the Dem Convention .. but what are the rules AFTER the convention?

[RonDog]

[Hillary is] going to end up being VP
and JF'nK is going to end up being V-Foster... - samtheman

LOL!

future V.P. and V. Foster?

[Lucky2]

Kerry must go down, and take a loser as VP with him... which means the VP will be Gephardt, not Edwards. Edwards is a threat to Hillary in 2008, Gephardt is not.

I think the rats know that kerry is going to loose to Bush. This is why the support behind kerry is weak. Hillary will wait until 2008 when the coast is clear.

[ALOHA RONNIE]

.

HILLARY worried about something..?
For Sure, For Sure.

RENO herself testified before the 911 Commission that "We got Lucky" when one U.S. Agent caught the LAX Bomber at the Canadian Border during the Mellinium.

Members of the CLINTON Administration told the American People over and over again on TV that this was the one example of its not being soft on Terrorism during the 1990's ..when it was..!!

And then there's the little matter of their refusing MONSOOR IJAZ's 3 Offers to bring OSAMA to us during the 1990's that the CLINTONS refused, thus guaranteeing Terrorist Attacks on our soil after they left the White House:



See:

Freeper Alert: MONSOOR IJAZ get PRIVATE 9/11 Testimony, demands IN PUBLIC

http://www.Freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1117043/posts

.

[JohnEBoy]

But your question begs a question. Remember, I said Torricelli "scenario". That included a total disregard for the current campaign laws in the state of NJ. Then the (democrat) NJ supreme court went along with it. So if the democrat party can repudiate state laws to benefit themselves, how much easier to change DNC rules when needed? So examining the current rules seems a waste of time since we have no idea which ones they would choose to ignore or violate when the time to do it comes.

By the way, I meant she will be replaced during the convention. Since it's in July, you are right, she would be running in Aug, Sept and Oct. 2004. Still, the point's the same, a much smaller window for attack by the opposition than a traditional primary/post-convention campaign.