Should Hil run for Prez in '04? Yes (2008 Is Too Late)

NY Daily ^ | 11/21/02 | FRANK J. DONATELLI

[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.

[Dataman]

If Hillary and AlGore square off for the Dimocratic Party's nomination, I wonder if any skeletons will pop out of their closets?

Al would probably be found cold in a park somewhere before that happened.

Doesn't anyone have a pic of Hill in 2008. She ought to be looking pretty dried-prunish by then.

[Constitutional Patriot]

"She can run as an unabashed advocate of the policies of the 1990s that created the greatest peacetime economy in U.S. history."

The policies of the 90's (looking the other way while massive fraud was perpetrated on American investors) is what caused the collapse (bubble then burst) we experienced in the past two years.

Most intelligent people know and understand this. This is why this message will do well with many democrats while infuriating everyone else.

[jimt]

Hillary ought to be running for trustee at Leavenworth.

[LetsRok]

Don't these idiots realize that Hillary is UNELECTABLE outside of NY City? She has absolutely zero legislative accomplishments.

[SpaceBar]

the domain name
clinton04.org
is for sale or lease
contact domains@dot-o-rama.com for details
more names at -> domains.dot-o-rama.com

Get it folks? Just use your imagination and fight the gag reflex.

[KeyBored]

"Will the Media harp about her lack of experience, like they did to Bush??"

Sure. The same day the Pope converts to Islam.

[Slyfox]

The demoncraps are going to be stuck with Hillary whether they like it or not.

I have a sneaking suspicion that The Rodham is secretly very happy that all her competitors have had to take a back seat. I bet she is very pleased that the party will only have her to look to for salvation. So, this election has done more to further her career. Who cares what happens to the rest of the party? Besides, which one of them is going to be brave enough to run against her for anything? She's got the goods on all of them. When she copied all those FBI files, she got her fellow demoncraps, too.

[Cicero]

As longtime Freepers remember, The NY Daily News is the house organ of the clinton dynasty. They were bill clinton's most loyal supporters, through thick and thin, and especially during the impeachment scandals. They also were hillary's most assiduous and sycophantic backers during her senate campaign.

In what has always seemed to me a symbolic gesture, the plutocratic leftist who owns the Daily News played poker with Bill Clinton on his plane on a flight from Washington, and the two of them laughed publicly together when House Leader Newt Gingrich, who had been consigned to quarters in the rear of the plane, was forced to exit the plane through the rear door while publisher and president emerged triumphantly at the front.

Considering all this history, it's inconceivable that the Daily News would run this article without the explicit consent of Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Presumably, too, this explains why criticism of McAuliffe for his egregious mistakes in the 2002 campaign have been almost nonexistent in Democrat circles and Democrat-controlled media. Hillary needs her stooge McAuliffe in place if she is to run in 2004.

It's a bit surprising, since the 2008 election seems to offer her a better shot. But evidently they recognize a reality (which I have spoken of earlier in the forum): that Hillary risks being a has-been by 2008. She can't afford to wait too long. She would have a very hard time holding onto power and control of the DNC for that long, against the ambitions of other Democrat candidates, without having some real powerbase.

Time will tell, but this article is certainly a big straw in the wind.

[the gillman@blacklagoon.com]

My only question is who's her running mate?

There's an old saying about the bridesmaids not outshining the bride. Where are they going to find a frumpy little flower girl to walk with Hillarious the First?

Lieberman?

[hattend]

They want bold colors, not pale pastels.

Is "Old Crusty Black" a bold color?

[hunter112]

These people are delusional.

Exactly what we are counting on. I certainly hope that the infighting within the Rats for the nomination in '04 will have implications that carry on to '08, when we have to put the Presidency at risk again. The catfight between Albore and the Hildebeast needs to wound the Rats for many years to come.

Having Republican governors in the Southern states will help a lot, since 1960, no Rat has been elected President without being a "new"-style Southern governor who was able to fool the sheeple that he was not a liberal idiot disguising himself as an "ordinary guy".