Crawford: Hillary Takes No Prisoners

NewsMax ^ | 5/27/06 | NewsMax

[wagglebee]

Because her husband takes no prisoners when confronting his political enemies, rivals for the 2008 Democrat presidential nomination fear to take on Senator Hillary Clinton, now widely touted to be the candidate most likely to lead her party's ticket two years from now, a noted political guru says.

According to political analyst Craig Crawford, that leaves just three potential rivals of the New York senator who can safely take the gloves off when dealing with her: former vice president Al Gore, failed 2004 presidential candidate John Kerry and his running mate John Edwards.

Writing in the May 29 issue of "CQ Weekly," Crawford predicted that Gore "could join the 2004 Democratic team, John Kerry and John Edwards, in what would be an exclusive club: potential rivals to New York’s junior senator who would have nothing to gain against her by keeping the gloves off."

None of the three, Crawford wrote, would have any interest in the vice presidential spot under Hillary and would have no reason to cuddle up to her in the hope of getting the nod as her running mate.

He went on to explain, "Gore spent eight years in office as next-in-line; it is impossible to imagine Kerry accepting a demotion after running in the top spot; and Edwards has already played second fiddle."

As for other Democrat presidential hopefuls, so far none has dared to attack Hillary, Crawford wrote, noting, "They all act like she is not there, as if they should be taken seriously without articulating why the conventional wisdom predicting her nomination is wrong."

Aside from the obvious fact that going negative on Hillary would doubtlessly doom any chances of being her running mate especially since "Bill Clinton is well known for a take-no-prisoners stance against political foes," Crawford wrote, "It will be interesting to see if any of the also-rans are prepared to go after her," adding, "The first to do so can join the club of serious presidential contenders."

Right now, the sole club members are Gore, Kerry and Edwards.

Crawford took a look at each one:

• "Gore is the wild card in that bunch, and while saying he has no current intention of running, he knows better than to close the door completely. The reaction to his recent turn on the national stage from liberal bloggers and elsewhere among party faithful was surprisingly positive. Starring in his 'An Inconvenient Truth,' his highly acclaimed documentary on global warming, and in a bit on NBC’s 'Saturday Night Live,' Gore is seemingly emerging from nowhere to captivate the attention of Democrats hungry for a party hero."

• "Kerry could find that the back-to-the-future sentimentality for Gore does not extend to him. Memories of his inadequacies as the nominee last time remain too fresh, although he is showing signs of an emerging ability to speak directly. On a recent interview with Tim Russert on NBC’s 'Meet The Press,' the Massachusetts senator uncharacteristically managed to answer a few yes-or-no questions by actually saying 'yes' or 'no,' although he went on to give typically long-winded explanations."

• "Edwards seems better positioned than Kerry to take hold in the 2008 presidential race. His incessant travels around the country are well received. Although regarded among party operatives as a disappointment on the 2004 ticket, he can make a sound case that he was bedeviled by a poorly run Kerry machine that did not know what to do with him and inexplicably wrote off the South despite picking a son of the region as running mate."

  Crawford wondered if any of the three could beat Clinton for the nomination, suggesting that the trouble with them is that the best case they can make is that Hillary cannot win a national general election. That he writes "is a tough case coming from three men who have recently lost national general elections."

  He concludes that "somebody must seed doubts before Clinton closes in on her rumored goal of raising $200 million for a presidential campaign. At that point, running for running mate is all the rest of the Democratic field will be able to hope for."

[SkyPilot]

Tony Snow wrote that excellent article on the Barret Report back in Dec, 2005.

Now that he is in a position of considerable power in the White House, do you think he is doing something about the cover up of that report?

That link was a bombshell, and that report is an unexploded artillery shell that has not been defused.

[gov_bean_ counter]

I had the same question.

[Fintan]

 

[SkyPilot]

Aside from the fact that the MSM hates Tony Snow because:

A. He is Conservative

B. He makes no bones about his political beliefs

C. He is talented and attractive

D. He worked for the "F-Network" which is such a threat to the MSM

I am tempted to an this:

E. Snow knows what is in the Barret Report. So does the staff of the National Review, and so does the House Judiciary Committee.

If the details come out, many Clinton toadies who abused their power at the IRS, Justice Dept, FBI, and the White House face criminal charges.

That is not an exaggeration - that is just the way it is.

No wonder Snow joked this scandal would make the Joe Wilson manufactured non-story a bad joke.

All Snow really has to do is have a serious sit down with the President, Hastert, and Frist.

[drhogan]

thanks!

[thoughtomator]

Count your parachutes before leaving on that small plane.

[webstersII]

"All Snow really has to do is have a serious sit down with the President, Hastert, and Frist."

Come on. You think the President, Hastert, and Frist don't have a clue what's in it?

The Barrett report is apparently part of the doctrine of Mutual Assured Destruction in Congress. They won't mention it because Hillary would unleash everything she has on all the GOP leadership.

[SkyPilot]

They won't mention it because Hillary would unleash everything she has on all the GOP leadership.

Which is?

I know she stole their FBI files, but what does she have on them? The Clintons used those during the Impeachment - and intimidated several Senators. All we have is guesswork of what details may have been in those files, and those could only prove embarrassing at the most.

The Barret Report is much more concrete, and recent.