H. Clinton Could Run for Presidnet in 2004????

Newsmax.com ^ | 12-04-02

[Theodore R.]

Hotline: Bill Positioning Hillary for 2004

Ex-President Bill Clinton gave the Democratic Party advice Tuesday on how to reinvigorate itself after last month's election losses, in a speech before the Democratic Leadership Council that had at least one party insider convinced he was positioning his wife for a run for the White House as soon as possible.

While most political experts say 2008 would be the best year for Sen. Hillary Clinton to make her move, the Hotline's Craig Crawford said her husband's speech, in which he advised party faithful on how to gain credibility on national security issues, indicated the Clintons would launch a bid to reclaim the White House in 2004.

"The truth is, if he isn't going to run Hillary now then he ought to just stay off the stage," Crawford told WABC Radio's John Batchelor and Paul Alexander. "I don't think he helps anybody by just stomping onto the scene and sucking all the air out of the room for someone to replace him as the leader of the party."

"I think he's all they've got," the former Carter aide noted. "You know, this is the fascinating problem for Democrats.... They don't have a symbol, a person - someone who is the face of the Democratic Party. They have not replaced Bill Clinton for that role and that's why they're having all these problems right now."

As long as Clinton remains his party's leader, "then he ought to go ahead and run his wife for president now," Crawford contended.

"I've always said Hillary ought to run," he added. "I mean, not 'cause I support her. Just 'cause I think the Clintons are the only ones who have shown the way to beat Bushes and that's probably the best way for Democrats to go."

To Batchelor's suggestion that Bill was using the DLC to road test lines for Hillary's coming campaign, Crawford replied, "Oh, I agree. If there's a vacuum for the leadership of this party in 2004, I mean, truly a vacuum - if Gore doesn't run or tanks and none of the others catch on - I can't imagine the Clintons being able to resist stepping into the race."

Read more on this subject in related Hot Topics:

[Theodore R.]

I wonder if AR Bill could stand to have the spotlight removed from himself in favor of any other candidate, including his "wife."

[Ff--150]

Homeland Security in HER hands...

[section9]

"I've always said Hillary ought to run," he added. "I mean, not 'cause I support her. Just 'cause I think the Clintons are the only ones who have shown the way to beat Bushes and that's probably the best way for Democrats to go."

The problem with this analysis is that it uses 1992 as its template.

1992 was an aberration year. Ross was running, and the economy was recovering, but people were convinced that they were in a deep recession. The voters wanted to get rid of Bush the Elder.

Bush 41 never gave the people a reason to reelect him; he never had any domestic policy to speak of, just a lot of musical chairs in the cabinet. Bush sort of floated through 1992 as if no one cared. And they lost because no one did.

Except the son. He watched. He learned. He and his younger friend Karl Rove took notes and applied the hard lessons of defeat.

Bush has masterfully occupied the center. He has done so as an incumbent. A successful incumbent who occupies the center is an incumbent who will win. I think Clinton knows this, which is why he would want his wife to wait. Half of politics is all about positioning, and Bush has used his ability to reach accross the aisle to position him and the Republican Party as a governing force until at least the end of the decade, if not beyond.

Of course, if Bill is stupid enough to run Hill, she will get her ass pasted from one end of this country to the other. We're talking serious electoral romp, here. The Rats would get their base vote: that's it.

Be Seeing You,

Chris

[Thebaddog]

I get a kick out of Clinton's brass balls going out there to give advice to the losers on how to beat Bush when he was the biggest loser of the last election cycle. If he is all the demos have, we will win and win and win.

[YourAdHere]

"President" is misspelled in the title of the thread.

[wideawake]

I agree with your analysis, and I think Rodham will run in 2008, not 2004.

What concerns me is the issue of succession: who will follow Bush? Cheney is older than W and he has heart problems - there is no obvious VP torch-passing.

Colin Powell has refused to run in the past and he's so liberal that I and many others would never vote for him.

We've got to think ahead - who's out there?

[Consort]

There are always plenty of people who won't appreciate the Geroge Bushes until the Hillary Clintons are elected. Whineos make RINOs look smart.

[4CJ]

Homeland Security in HER hands...

My friend, you owe me a new keyboard! You're supposed to give a warning!

[heavy12773]

jeb

[wideawake]

I'd like to see it - but the whole "son of a Bush/attempted monarchy" thing will garner a lot more credibility if that happens.

It could be a PR nightmare.

[Cincinatus]

We've got to think ahead - who's out there?

It's very difficult for a member of Congress to run and get elected President -- the last one was Kennedy; all other presidents since FDR came from state or other federal executive office, almost always the VP slot.

I agree with you that Cheney's out for age reasons; ditto Don Rumsfeld. Colin Powell is a possibility, but a long shot, I think - he's never been elected to anything and the American people don't like to hire "starters" as Presidents (ditto these comments re: Condy Rice). That leaves the state governorships and a few wild cards.

I would predict likely strong GOP contenders in '08 as Jeb Bush - FL (depending on how Dubya's 2nd term goes), George Pataki - NY, and for wild card governors, Rick Perry - TX and Bob Ehrlich - MD. Another non-governor wild card: Rudy Guiliani

[smiley]

I work with staunch Democrats as well as Republicans and these Democrats state even they would never ever vote for Hillary for President!

[SouthernHawk]

How about Dr. Condoleezza Rice?

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/797483/posts

[texastoo]

If Hilliary runs, Bill Clinton will be in the spotlight. They will run as a two-for-one candidate. With all the lovey/dovey entrappings to the media. I don't think he can wait much longer for the spotlight. Especially with the aging process going on for both of them.

They are both ready now IMHO.

[section9]

We've got to think ahead - who's out there?

A female candidate like Hillary will depend on her ability to corral the white women's vote and hold onto the base. Women are terribly difficult to campaign against. 2008 could be a difficult year for us, as people will want change.

We have to offer the change. Or we will lose.

You beat a woman with another woman.

Be Seeing You,

Chris

[wideawake]

Same argument I have against Pataki and Powell - I will not vote for a pro-abortion candidate, and a winning Republican candidacy is based on getting out the conservative Christian vote.

Rice can't do it.

[ModernDayCato]

Unfortunately I was told last year by an insider that Tom Ridge is the next annointed one.

[johnny7]

I wonder if AR Bill could stand to have the spotlight removed from himself in favor of any other candidate, including his "wife."

They are “partners”. Billy the Rapist will be on Larry King, Leno and Letterman every night and Oprah in the daytime.

He will go 24/7.

I'm not saying shes going to run for the nomination, but she would accept the VP role.

[wideawake]

Again, Ridge is a pro-abort. He can't rally the Republican base and get high numbers of conservative Christians to the polls.

The Rices, Powells, Ridges, Patakis and Giulianis of the party have taken the immoral side of an important moral issue which is a make-or-break one for millions of voters.

[Quilla]

To Batchelor's suggestion that Bill was using the DLC to road test lines for Hillary's coming campaign, Crawford replied, "Oh, I agree. If there's a vacuum for the leadership of this party in 2004, I mean, truly a vacuum - if Gore doesn't run or tanks and none of the others catch on - I can't imagine the Clintons being able to resist stepping into the race."

Oh, I disagree. From the few clips I saw of Clinton's speech, when he spoke of the next leader of the democratic party, he constantly used the word "he". Clinton is smart enough to know that Bush will be hard (if not impossible) to beat in 2004. He knows whoever runs will be the sacrificial lamb - not a position he or Hillary! would risk. I believe she'll hold out until 2008.

I must add, he looked horrible. Apparently he is slowly getting his just rewards as his nose looks more and more like the head which makes his decisions.