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.
Where did he come up with this crap? The key to the election is the South, and she has no chance in the South. She never will.
Hillary plans to run in 2004 as democrat party national stragety - to think anything else is a waste of resources; it is high time to position the Republican ticket to deal with her and to make 1968 happan all over again!
The sinking economy and the destruction of jobs will be the major item in the 2004 campaign. The democrats will demogogue these to death.
I think Hillary! is more of a threat than anybody else out there, especially if she takes the nomination at the last minute (which is what I think her stategy is). She can galvanize the Left and the Media in a heartbeat. Millions of women will vote for her simply because she is a "woman".
One thing nobody has yet mentioned is the huge "dead" vote, illegal vote and the big city machines that will go into overdrive stuffing ballot boxes. It won't even matter if it is "obvious", all that matters is she "win". After she takes office, she owns the Justice Department and there will be no prosecutions of even widespread voter fraud no matter how much anybody screams. Look how effective Reno was in shutting Justice down!
If Hillary gets into office, the American Republic is doomed. The ultimate in Organized Crime will have prevailed, probably for good. This situation is that serious. We shouldn't kid ourselves.
1) W is not Lazio, who was a pathetic candidate.
2)The NY media abetted the Shrew's campaign by failing to call her on anything. Her "masterful performance" consisted of her not saying anything, and the media not asking anything. That will not happen nationally.
3)The Shrew is incapable of thinking on her feet. W would clobber her because he is smarter.
In other words, please run Hillary, please!
That is sad... a lot of women voted for Gore becaue they liked the way he kissed Tipper on TV.
Agreed. That is why she will force an "expendable crew member" (like Gary Locke responding to the State of the Union Address) to take the brunt of the bad results. Then she can step into the fray in '08 to "save" her party. Here's hoping Rudy runs her out of her Senate office in the meantime.
I agree... you'll recall there were plenty of experts who claimed clinton I couldn't get elected in the first place... or re-elected. We dismiss this at our peril.
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.