FYI...I feel a little nervous putting this down on paper. Someone had to..
FYI..please ping if you deem worthy..
I agree with you - it's a win-win for Hillary to take Kerry's position.
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.
She wants a mandate... not a hand-me-down. She'll have the nomination handed to her on a scarlet, velvet pillow while nubile, young lesbo's shower her path with rose petals!
Sorry.
I think Republicans are paranoid about Hillary.
She is not the bogeyman.
I'm not afraid of her in 2008, I'm even less afraid of her in 2004.
If she wants to jump into the ring, to quote John Kerry, "Bring it on".
Disagree. The Clinton's are to subtle and risk adversive to attempt to overturn the results of the primaries and convention.
The Clinton's have assumed control of Kerry campaign. Instead of getting better things are getting decidedly worse for Kerry. She will stand on the sidelines as Kerry's campaign is destroyed from within.
In 2008 Hillary will be the automatic front runner because of the disastrous numbers of Kerry and Edwards but she will still have to enter primaries. What happens in the intervening WOT years will determine if Hillary's 2008 Democrat presidential candidate nomination is of any value.
I can see the possibility of this .. but with 2 exceptions .. #4 - Nader will not support Hillary. And .. a lot of people who HATE Hillary would switch to Nader.
The other issue I have is that the reaction from the Reagan democrats would be substantially negative toward Hillary. Along with that would be people who seldom vote at all entering the fray just to keep Hillary (and Bill) out of the WH.
You could be right that this would not necessarily be bad for her and would place her at the top of the party for 2008, but I don't see dems that support her in that strong of a position in 2008. I see just the opposite.
Why I think it could be bad for her:
People have recently been reminded of the Clinton cabal - Carville, Davis, Blumenthal, Shrum, etc. These people are not a GOOD reminder of the Clinton presidency.
The only issue not mentioned is the DEAN PEOPLE. If Hillary attempts to take over the campaign, it could cause a distinct split between the Deaniacs and Hillary.
With those 2 issues, Hillary could be devastated in the election .. and although she could plead lack of time as a scapegoat, I believe there will be lots of dems/people who will feel America has really dodged a bullet. If the loss is sufficient, I don't believe Hillary would stand a very good chance in 2008. If Hillary wants some kind of guarantee, 2008 is not it.
"this scenario is actively under discussion among Clintonistas"
like who? morons like us who speculate about these things for fun? (i am reminded of every time a top Bush person resigns and we all talk about who the replacement should be....i am usually one of the first to post of course)
or are you talking about people with real clout?
what would the legal moves need to be? kerry pulls out and the DNC picks a new person? won't it also be problematic state by state?
Even with the RATmedia baying at full blast Hillary will NEVER get more than 42% of the vote.
This would be a dream come true for me but she can easily see there is no chance for her to win. Will NOT happen.
Actually, about a couple of weeks ago, I already mentioned to Mr. Tonk on another thread that there is the possibility that we could be TOO successful in demolishing Kerry with the result that Hillary would replace him.
It's possible, but I don't think it will happen barring an unusual catastrophe. I believe Hillary wants to do a full campaign to win.
My Grandma says if my aunt had b*lls she'd be my uncle!
I have had similar thoughts for a long time and have been afraid to mention them. I only hope that those whose job it is to run scenarios are prepared for the one you have laid out. Because, as you say, time will be short.
I feel extremely nervous. I don't believe in "planting the seeds" of my own destruction.
Another complaint - just because a woman wants a job does not mean - in any way - that it is predestined that she will inherit the position.
I have always been upset with "our side" so afraid of a Hillary that they themselves bring it about. She is not qualified for a presidency - but all this talk of her jumping in just feeds into her power of assumption to the throne.
She is no different than Al Gore (who wanted the presidency), John Kerry (who wants the presidency), Howard Dean (who wanted the presidency). We strongly err when we fall down and just let her walk her way to running this nation.
No - No - No.
And - remember - the woman was married to a president, was a lawyer and a one term senator. Just where does she show that she so far outshines all governors, all career military, all political candidates to be the top choice to just walk into the job with absolutely no necessary experience, honor, character, integrity, or ability?
I know there is a need to discuss our fears but on a internet website that, especially at this time, is being seen by tons of liberals?
Hey it worked for McGreedy...
You, uh, wearing your new tinfoil pajamas?
Yes, your assumptions and projections are realistic.
Funny that just as the Clinton's get workers in the Kerry-Rather campaign, this breaks out and destroys Kerry..