Posted on 05/04/2003 3:11:35 AM PDT by sarcasm
It is not merely the ranting of radio talk show hosts and their callers.
It is not just daydreaming by political junkies. It's still a long shot, but it really could happen.
Hillary in '04!
No, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York is not about to announce her candidacy for president in 2004, joining the jostling pack of Democratic candidates elbowing each other and participating in their first debate this weekend in South Carolina. Her reputation for keeping secrets is well-known, but everybody believes she is planning to sit out 2004 and aiming for the 2008 election to run for president.
Nevertheless, Hillary could be propelled, without her volition, into next year's presidential election. The prospect of another Bush-Clinton race--with a younger Bush and a female Clinton--generates hope and fear among Democrats and Republicans alike.
Democrats hope that Mrs. Clinton can duplicate nationally her letter-perfect 2000 campaign for the U.S. Senate but fear she could bring on one of the periodic Democratic washouts, in the mold of George McGovern and Walter Mondale. Republicans hope her premature presidential candidacy could mean ridding themselves of the Clintons at long last, but are frightened by her masterful performance in New York.
The former first lady certainly generates far more attention than the pallid band of announced candidates. This weekend's South Carolina debate will not get a fraction of the media exposure Sen. Clinton will command between now and June 9, the publication date of Living History, her memoir of life as first lady. With hints that it will reveal what Hillary really thinks of Monica Lewinsky--and her husband--an instant runaway best seller is promised.
A book, even one with a first printing of 1 million copies, is no substitute for a political campaign. However, it contributes to a mood of "Hillarymania" that may produce a heady concoction when mixed with two political facts of life.
First, there is no superstar among the eight announced Democratic presidential candidates. There is no charismatic young standard bearer in the mold of John F. Kennedy or Bill Clinton or an intriguing, unusual newcomer such as Jimmy Carter. As of today, none of the candidates looks like a winner against George W. Bush.
Second, the Democratic timetable has been moved forward radically, with primary elections earlier and a much higher percentage of delegates to be selected by the end of March.
Those two factors could militate against the usual way the Democratic Party has avoided a deadlock in multi-candidate fields over the past generation. George McGovern in 1972, Jimmy Carter in 1976, Michael Dukakis in 1988 and Bill Clinton in 1992 all started as little-known candidates. But as they won one primary election after another going into the spring, they collected a majority of delegates well before the first gavel opened the national convention.
That could happen again in 2004, but it is much more difficult because of so many primaries compacted early in the year.
Although the odds are still negative, it is now arithmetically possible that no nominee will emerge before the convention begins.
Consider this possible scenario. Rep. Richard Gephardt of Missouri wins the opening round, the caucuses in neighboring Iowa. Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts follows with a victory in the first primary election, in neighboring New Hampshire. South Carolina, the first southern primary, is won by Sen. John Edwards from neighboring North Carolina. Michigan, jumping into the early primary election mix, gives first place to Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut.
Because different winners according to this scenario divide up the primaries, the normal winnowing out process would not occur. If that happens, the Democratic Party will go into its July convention in Boston without a clear winner for the first time since Chicago in 1952 when Illinois Gov. Adlai Stevenson was nominated on the third ballot.
Here looms the brokered convention that journalists and other political junkies have dreamed about for half a century.
Enter Hillary. Assume there has been no economic collapse and President Bush is still riding the crest of military victory in Iraq. Who else would the Democrats turn to but the woman who stood aloof from her husband's escapades, won election in a strange state and then made a mark for herself in the U.S. Senate as a shrewd, industrious freshman member.
It would be an immense gamble for Democrats--the first woman candidate for president and an enormously controversial one at that. Many Republicans anticipate a showdown between Hillary Clinton and George W. Bush as promising the death knell of the Democratic Party. But New Yorkers could remind them of the perils in getting what you wish for.
Lest Americans ever forget why the clintons, and all their enablers need to be hectored, hounded, and harried into silence, until "clintonese is only spoken in Hell," look here:
Warning!
| Liars-- and Sleaze, Incorporated... ( my files on the clintons and friends ) |
||||||
|
|
||||||
| FOB and FOFOB... the clinton friend files | ||||||
Just picture ANY of these as Commander-in-Chief??
Kerry has already been exposed as a dolt in the Boston Globe... the bastion of MA liberal/socialism!
Why would they dis the “ketchup boy”... their favorite son?!
Hillary, like rust, never sleeps. Be skeer'ed... be real skeer'ed!
That having been said, as long as Dubya doesn't commit a major gaffe of the kind Bush the Elder committed in raising taxes, Hillary! has essentially no chance to defeat him. If I'm right, we should hope she runs, as it would devalue her candidacy for 2008, when the GOP has to come up with a new candidate.
Freedom, Wealth, and Peace,
Francis W. Porretto
Visit the Palace Of Reason:
http://palaceofreason.com
I disagree. I don't think she wants to run against GWB.
The reason she ran in NY because she knew it was the only state she had a chance. She would lose in most states....and by wide margins.
I agree totally with this. Also, NY has virtually no residency requirement and she had the benefit of running against the "B-team".
Too dangerous, too exposed, for too long. She won't be like Bill, the day she announces is the day Operation Save America goes into gear, 24/7/365.
Operation Infinite Freep will pale into insignificance beside Operation Ditch the B*tch.
So, she has to be the RAT candidate for the shortest time possible (like October 15-November 2, 2004).
How to accomplish this? and why are the Xlintons supporting John Edwards? (I take it as a given that HRC knows she has to run in 2004 or not at all-she is not aging gracefully).
If Candidate Edwards meets with Arkancide at the hands of a right-wing NRA loving pro life white male on or about October 10, 2004, and HRC is forced against her will to come forward to save a grief-stricken Party, remember you read it here first.
Both GOP Tsuanami blowouts were repudiations to the Clintons. Tsunami 94 was in reponse to Hillary Care and Tsuanmi 02 was a complete repudiation of the Clinton Legacy which helped setup 911.
If Hitlery runs in 04, she'll get absolutely crushed! Talk about negative turnout!!!
I think this is wishful thinking on your part.
If the race were held today, HRC would get 40-43% of the vote nationwide.
Now consider-do you know any group of 100 people where 43 of them would vote for HRC?
No, you don't, and neither do I-so we both are substantially underdiscerning the HRC vote.
Add to this that she will have (media) air superiority and that her campaign will be very unconventional in design, relying on deception and "shock and awe" (see my post #17), and there is ample reason to worry.
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.