Posted on 05/31/2005 6:42:00 PM PDT by blam
Hillary Clinton clears way for presidential run
By Francis Harris in Washington
(Filed: 01/06/2005)
Senator Hillary Clinton has decided to remove a key obstacle to a run at the presidency, further fuelling fevered speculation about her hopes for America’s top job.
Mrs Clinton is understood to be ready to drop a pledge to serve a full six-year term when she seeks re-election as senator for New York next year. This will be the clearest sign of her intention to run for the White House, since she pointedly told New York voters in 2000 that she would not curtail her term in order to try for the presidency.
Hillary Clinton could find the language to appeal to swing voters
The official line from her advisers is that Mrs Clinton is keeping her options open. But The Washington Post reported: “In 2000, she repeatedly pledged that she would finish her term without seeking the presidency. Aides say she will not issue such a pledge this time.” The American political clock is already running.
Most candidates for the presidency will declare in the first half of 2007, after the senate elections in November 2006. This allows them to start fund-raising for the lengthy American campaign season. Yesterday’s news came days after a poll indicated for the first time that Mrs Clinton — until recently thought of as too divisive a figure for the White House — is now viewed as electable by a majority of Americans.
The Gallup survey showed that 53 per cent of voters would back her. The American Left, large parts of which once discounted a Hillary Clinton presidency as doomed to failure, is now reconsidering. The influential Left-leaning Nation magazine this week suggested that the woman characterised as an ultra-liberal by the Right could find the language to appeal to swing voters.
“She projects pragmatism on economic issues and signals ideological flexibility on social issues,” the magazine said. “This latter tactic is not, as is often argued, about appeasing the Right. It’s about appealing to moderates in both parties.” Republicans are openly wondering how to deal with another Clinton.
With George W Bush forced to retire in 2008, and vice-president Dick Cheney and secretary of state Condoleezza Rice ruling themselves out, several names are being mentioned. Perhaps the least likely is Laura Bush, who was recommended by the vice-president’s wife, Lynne Cheney, in an interview.
Dream on Crumpetland.
What a hideous, spoiled brat. I cannot wait for the rejection of her communist dream.
In other words they believe she's at least as good a liar as her husband.....lol
What the hell does a pledge mean to this chick? She isn't going to feel bound by some stupid pledge.
LAURA BUSH 2008!!!!
Runaway Bribe?
As a widow, she will get some sympathy vote, but would still lose the overall vote and drag in a new Republican super majority and President IMO.
Who died?
She's telling New York that as long as she needs them she needs them. I think New York should tell her bye bye this election....kick the cunning runt to the curb on New Yorks schedule not hers.
Screw New Yorkers. They helped create this pile of poop. Let them lie in it.
Pledges? We don't need no steenking PLEDGES!
I was mulling over whether I thought the public was ready for a woman president. If terrorism is still the main focus and security is a top priority, I don't think so. Not because of being a woman per se as Maggie Thatcher for example was one tough cookie, but because it would be hard to justify someone like Clinton running the military IMO.
However, I think that if people feel that there is no security threat, many women would vote for a woman for president in a heartbeat just so that there finally is one. There will be no logic to this. It will be emotion driven. Women will vote for her just because having a woman President will be different and "exciting"- pure vanity reasons. (Disclosure: I am a female).
Although I usually think that Dick Morris is 180 degrees out of step, on this I think he is dead on: A woman will have to be on the Repub ticket SOMEWHERE to counter the women who will vote for Hillary just because she is a woman. The gender issue will need to be neutralized.
I DO NOT want Hillary to be anywhere near the WH, and our side would be best served to NOT underestimate her and become complacent that she could never win. That is a sure way for her to win.
I don't think that the Telegraph is promoting her candidacy (it is a conservative newspaper), but is just reporting what is going on here in the US.
she will get a huge surge in female voters. independent women who might tilt R, will trend towards her because of the novelty of electing the first woman president. and many young single women who otherwise would not vote, will come out because its "cool" to elect the first woman. add to the the Hispanic vote with Richardson as VP. toss in a few lies about how she would "secure" the border, ahd she'll even dupe some conservatives to vote for her.
bottom line - don't underestimate her.
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.