Posted on 11/21/2002 8:50:31 AM PST by Tumbleweed_Connection
With the decisive GOP victory in the midterm elections, Democrats are seeking a standard-bearer for 2004 with a clear message and a proven track record for victory. They want bold colors, not pale pastels. They say they need someone who can frame an economic message that will cut against President Bush and the Republicans, someone to fire up the Democratic bases, someone who will confront the President directly.
If this is the Democratic formula for victory, then Hillary Clinton should seek the Democratic presidential nomination in 2004.
To everything there is a season. This is especially true in presidential politics. You can only hope the public wants what you're selling when you're selling it. The best politicians are able to match the times with their strengths. Franklin Roosevelt in 1932, John F. Kennedy in 1960, Ronald Reagan in 1980 - all might have been defeated in other years.
Presidential politics is messy and unpredictable, and even the most successful candidates grab for public opinion and hold on with all their strength. The landscape is littered with candidates who waited too long.
The year Clinton runs for President should be 2004, not 2008 or 2012. Why?
She can be nominated. Who is going to stop her? John Kerry? John Edwards? Gray Davis? Al Gore? Even without Hillary, he would not have a cakewalk. He may not even run if Clinton does. Democrats are still angry at him for kicking away the peace and prosperity legacy left to him by the other Clinton, which leads to the second reason.
She can run the campaign that Democrats say they should have run in 2000 and again this year. It is the economy, stupid, and she is the only one who can say so. She can run as an unabashed advocate of the policies of the 1990s that created the greatest peacetime economy in U.S. history. She already has the music down. Her stump speech is rich with comparisons between Democratic economic successes in the '90s and the struggling economy of today.
She best represents the activists of the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party is secular, socially libertarian, corporate- capitalist, multicultural and, above all, sympathetic to those who suffer unjustly in America. She could unify the party like no one else.
It will be too late in 2008. Four years is a lifetime in American politics. Eight years is an eternity. What will people think of Bill Clinton by then? Many voters won't even remember him.
Hillary has referred to the Clinton victories of the 1990s as the triumph of ideas. What better way to secure another such triumph than to show how hollow the Republican victory this year really was? A 2008 candidacy is subject to many interpretations. A Clinton victory next time can be read only one way - as support for the proactive policies long advocated by the Democratic Party.
BBBAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAWWWWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
I never realized that looking the other way as corporate fraud created a massive market bubble could be construed as a positive.
Doesn't matter, the press will pretend it's just a chorus line of dancing girls...
BAWHAHAHAHAHA!
This guy obviously doesn't remember the Pretty in Pink news conference.
Her stump speech is rich with comparisons between Democratic economic successes in the '90s and the struggling economy of today.
The economy won't be struggling in 2004.
What will people think of Bill Clinton by then? Many voters won't even remember him.
This guy is so delusional that he thinks this would be a drawback.
The Draft Hillary campaign - orchestrated by Hillary - has begun.
Maybe, but she repels the other 60% of the country. I don't see how she could possibly carry enough states to win. I daresay even Maryland could go against 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.