Posted on 09/13/2004 12:27:52 PM PDT by ken5050
As many of you know, I have over the past four years occasionally chronicled the Clintons, from the perspective of what one hears and observes from Beautiful Downtown Chappaqua. Many Freepers have told me how much they enjoy my commentaries. I've ignored the rumors, the innuendos, the "tin-foil hat" theories. Indeed, there are many more very interesting details that I have deliberately chosen NOT to share with all of you. What I'm going to discuss now is admitted speculation on my part, but based upon a few conversations I've had in the last few days..and you'll have to trust my instincts on my sources..OK..here goes..
Early in 2004, , I posted my theory, again, partially gleaned from sources, that after Kerry loses this fall, Hillary would chose NOT to run for re-election to the Senate in 2006.
Were she to announce that she was running for re-election, the FIRST question she'd be asked would be.."Will you pledge to the voters of NY that you will serve out your full term?" Kind of hard to fudge on that one.
Until recently, Hillary's overriding objectives, as she positioned herself for 2008, has been to avoid a primary season. Look at what the Dems did to themselves this last cycle. Total chaos. Does anyone think Hillary wants to traipse around the country, sharing a platform with Al Sharpton and Dennis Kucinich, or plowing throught the snow in NH, or the cold winter nights in IOWA?..No way. She wants to be "annointed" the candidate, by consensus, sometime early in 2005...To that end, she, and Bill, have gone through the motions to maintain the fiction that they're doing everything to help Kerry's campaign.
In reality, they're salivating over the open seat for the WH in 2008. We all know it.
For months, there has been rampant speculation of an October surprise; Hillary being substitued for Kerry, as the Dems roll out their "Torricelli/McGreevey" strategy on a national basis. FWIW, I always thought that was pure garbage.
But now, by an odd series of events, the probablity of Hillary replacing Kerry on the ticket this fall has suddenly become very viable, from her perspective, and it is being discussed within Clinton circles.
Here's why..and to help explain, let's use a football analogy. It's what happens when the defense commits a penalty at the start of a play. The offense gets a "free play." No matter what happens, the pass gets intercepted, a fumble occurs..the offensive team gets the ball back...and they just might score a touchdown..
OK..now in political terms...let's assume the following..
1. Kerry's poll numbers continue to decline over the next two weeks.
2. The CBS memo scandal continues to unravel, and more and more it looks like the Kerry campaign was the source of the forged memos.
3. Several of the Senate races worsen for the Dems.
An electoral disaster is in the making for the Democratic party.
Nothing so far to argue with, right? Indeed, most of you reading this would say all the above are probably correct.
OK. The decision inside the Dem power structure is made to replace Kerry, and have the Dem National Committee choose Hillary as the nominee. ( Never mind how they get Kerry to withdraw, any number of reasons/methodologies suggest themselves)
Here's where we would then find ourselves.
1. An absolute media circus. It would overshadow everything, including the Bush campaign. Go ahead, just imagine it...the mind boggles, doesn't it?
2. Everyone has long talked about Bill being Hillary's biggest problem. How would the idea of Bill as first spouse, back in the Oval office, play with the majority of the American people? Who wants to be reminded of "sinks" and "stains" all over again?
Well, Bill's recent operation has taken that piece off the board. He's getting sympathy as a patient, and he can be kept out of sight throughout the abbreviated campaign. He's not "well enough" to participate. Indeed, Hillary is garnering sympathy because of her husband's medical condition.
3. This would all have to happen within the next two weeks, so that Hillary could participate in the Presidential debates. And wouldn't those get some incredible ratings.
4. Ralph Nader would immediately suspend his campaign, endorse Hillary, and campaign for her. Another big Dem problem solved.
5. Because the campaign would be so short, so compressed, there would be no time to publicly address Hillary's record, her positions on the issues. In effect, she'd get a free pass on her entire previous career. It would be invisible. By comparison, it'd make Kerry's efforts to erase his 20 year Senate career look like Times Square on New Year's Eve.
The Bush campaign would fight the good fight, but it'd be the equivalent of shouting into a hurricane. It wouldn't be heard.
And now, to sum it all up for you. Were this to happen, there are two possible outcomes. Hillary wins, the restoration is complete, and we all know what happens next. Let's not dwell on it here.
Hillary loses to Bush. Hooray! But from her perspective, it's not a problem. SHE DID HER BEST. SHE TRIED HARD FOR US. SHE GOT IN TOO LATE. KERRY MESSED IT UP, LEFT HER WITH AN INSURMOUNTABLE HILL TO CLIMB. IT WASN'T HER FAULT. WITH MORE TIME, SHE'D HAVE WON.
And because of this, she's the automatic candidate for 2008. No opposition, no primaries, just four years to run the campaign. She can't lose. It's a win/win for her.
And my friends, when the Clintons perceive themselves to be in a "can't lose" situation, they are at their most dangerous.
All I can tell you is that this scenario is actively under discussion among Clintonistas. I'm only surprised that it hasn't been reported before. But, hey , this is the "new media" at it's best.
Note: Flame away, if you must. I've tried to carefully identify what is speculation, and what I do know to be under discussion. I'll be off line till late tonight, but I will respond to all comments and questions late tonite.
FYI...I feel a little nervous putting this down on paper. Someone had to..
FYI..please ping if you deem worthy..
6. With Hillary at the head of the ticket, Democratic coffers fill to overflowing. Republicans, having shot their wad defining Kerry, have to scrounge to get the funds to compete with Hillary.
Are there any laws about how a replacement candidate is to be chosen? For example, if the Pres & VP candidates were killed the day before the election, how would candidates be selected?
There have to be some laws about this. Not that the Dems would follow them.
Please FReepmail me if you want on or off my infrequent ‘miscellaneous’ ping list.
I agree with you - it's a win-win for Hillary to take Kerry's position.
Hillary will run in 2008 and win, she will be president for 8 years, after which time you will not recognize this country and it will fall into ruin some 34 years later and cease to exist.
no way in heck will she ever do this. she has 2008 all sewn up and the nomination will be given to her without lifting a finger. She has nothing to gain by all the controversy.
there's too much mud in the water now and she needn't be soiled by it all. Taking over the nod isn't in her interests.
The New Jersey state Supreme Court ruled Wednesday, October 02, 2002, that the Democratic Party can replace Sen. Robert Torricelli's name on the November ballot with former Sen. Frank Lautenberg...........The 7-0 decision cited previous rulings that said election law should be broadly interpreted to "allow parties to put their candidates on the ballot, and most importantly, to allow the voters a choice."..........The Torricelli-Lautenberg machine's disregard for the rule of law, fair elections and the people ...
Only twenty-six days to go.
I just peeked before closing the computer. You missed the point. She can't lose by going for it now..and there are many things that can happen between now and 2008..
I have long believed that your scenario is quite possible. Not probable but possible.
It's still a long shot but like you say they're in a win win situation.
Kinda sounds like NOT thinking about the pink...donkey!
If somebody on the tickets dies or is replaced by the DNC for one reason or another, potential electors are told of the change. Because most state ballots are now locked in concrete, there would be special TV advertising telling voters that to vote for Clinton/Edwards, you have to vote for Kerry/Edwards.
Why on October 9th?
There would be too much suspicion and hard feeling.
She couldn't win with a divided party.
She'd have all those advantages you mention in 2008 AND no war president to run against.
You forgot a couple of very important things here.
1. Hillary has a 100 million dollar war chest.
2. Teresa went to the hospital for a belly ache and in addition she has been off the campaign trail.
3. Kerry has not given up his Senate seat.
4. Kerry has not given any interviews.
It looks like the Kerry campaign might play a Teresa is ill therefore I am leaving the campaign to be with her.
Hillary steps in, Kerry gets the Secretary of State job should HIllary win.
And we wondered if the Torrecelli gambit meant anything.
It IS an interesting proposal, but I think it's highly unlikely.
This (AFAIK) has NEVER happened in an American election. Do you think the DNC would even THINK about going for this? Granted, the MSM would go ga-ga, and Fox, Drudge, Rush, Hannity, and every conservative talker out there would blow their collective top. But, can you imagine what the American people would do??? A good part of the nation would be up in arms, and possibly upset enough to "do something about it" (let your imagination run on this one...). We wouldn't stand for it.
Now, please understand, this is NOT an attack against you. It is intriguing, but it smacks just a little of 'tinfoil hat' to me.
Even so, we shall see.....
I'd sell a KIDNEY to defeat HIllary.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.