[rick_reno]

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=34328

ELECTION 2004
Hillary close to decision
on run for White House
Inner circle set for pow-wow on possible bid for presidency

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: August 29, 2003
1:00 a.m. Eastern


By Joseph Farah
© 2003 WorldNetDaily.com


WASHINGTON – Is she, or isn't she?

Sources close to former first lady Hillary Clinton say she is no longer discounting any chance of jumping into the 2004 race for the presidency.

Buoyed by polls that show President Bush's job-approval rating sagging and inspired by the fact that none of the nine declared Democratic presidential candidates' campaigns has caught fire, Clinton and her closest aides will huddle next week to explore their options.

Yesterday Clinton made an appearance on the "Today" show, a friendly media environment for her. Two weeks ago, her staff told the press she wouldn't be doing any interviews until October.

"The race for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2004 has changed totally in the past few weeks," wrote Richard Reeves in his column yesterday. "At the beginning of the summer, Hillary could comfortably deny having national presidential ambitions, because the comfortable conventional wisdom was that it didn’t really matter who the Democratic candidate would be, because President Bush had a lock on re-election."

However, several recent polls show Bush vulnerable – even trailing presidential aspirant Dick Gephardt in one survey. Clinton, who has previously leaned toward a run in 2008, in a wide-open contest with no incumbent in the White House eligible for re-election, now must factor in the possibility of a Democrat actually winning against Bush next year.

Practically, Clinton must decide to run or not before the end of the year to meet filing deadlines in November and December for the critical early primary elections.

Reeves and other analysts believe the nominee will be selected, for all intents and purposes, by March 2 – an election night Super-Tuesday, with primaries in California, New York, Texas, Ohio and eight smaller states.

If one candidate wins both the Iowa Caucuses Jan. 19 and the New Hampshire primary Jan. 27, it could realistically spell the end of most of the competition within the Democratic Party.

"Sen. Clinton is in the same high-stakes dilemma as one of her predecessors was 35 years ago," writes Reeves. "In 1968, New York Sen. Robert F. Kennedy was the most celebrated Democrat in the country after President Lyndon Johnson announced he would not run – after almost being defeated in New Hampshire by a critic of the war in Vietnam, Sen. Eugene McCarthy of Minnesota. Kennedy threw caution and old non-candidate promises to the wind and entered the contest against McCarthy and Hubert Humphrey. There are great similarities between then and now, and between New York's carpetbagger senators – Bobby from Massachusetts, Hillary from Arkansas – beginning with their name recognition, their armies of admirers and enemies and their dominating position in polls."

The four top current Democratic presidential candidates – Sen. John Kerry, Sen. Joseph Lieberman, House Majority Leader Richard Gephardt and former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean – each poll between 15-20 percent of the vote in most surveys. When Clinton is thrown into the mix, she gets between 37 percent and 48 percent of the vote, according to national pollsters.

"In other words," said one insider, "it's Hillary's race to lose. The nomination is hers for the asking. The only question is whether she is ready to take a risk on beating Bush."

[Waitone]

Practically, Clinton must decide to run or not before the end of the year to meet filing deadlines in November and December for the critical early primary elections. Assuming she wants to endure th primaries. Its more her style to swoop in after SC to and claim the nomination. Looks like Dean will win at least one primary. I can hear Hillary claiming Dean is far too leftist to represent the centrist democrat party.

I predict the answer will be she will not run. . .. . .for now.

[rick_reno]

My money was on the scenario that the current crop of candidates would go into the convention in New York City (no accident it's being held there) with no clear winner and they'd draft Hillary for the run.

I still think that is a likely outcome; it enables her to maintain her vow (remember - these are Democrats we're discussing here) to finish out her Senate term with the simple statement "They drafted me. I didn't have a choice and had to run."

[BigG]

Anybody who wants my private thoughts pm me. :evil: This is a civil board! :p

[Hkmp5sd]

She is not close to a decision. The decision was made long ago. Check out the book HILLARY's SCHEME: Inside the Next Clinton's Ruthless Agenda to Take the White House by Carl Limbacher.

[TheEgg]

******* promised the good people of New York, on her solemn word of honor, that she would serve out her six year term in the senate, and NOT run for President in 2004!

And we all know how trusworthy, honest, and loyal the Clintons are, don't we?











Excuse me, even writing the above in jest just made me :barf:

[Quartus]

Right on, HK. The ONLY decision to be made is a tactical one. Will she run NOW or in 2008? The ONLY factor there is the questioin of Bush's beatability. If she thinks he's got a lock on it, she won't run. If she thinks she can take him, she'll run.


"At the beginning of the summer, Hillary could comfortably deny having national presidential ambitions,

Yes, comfortably, because she's comfortable with bold faced lying. http://www.thehighroad.org/attachment.php?s=&postid=462333

[Waitone]

The issue is 2004 or 2008 not if.

If she moves on 2004 then she and her handlers think Bush is really vulnerable. Since there is no way the American public will trust a democrat with national security Bush's weakness has to be the economy.

I maintain that if the democrats want to really skunk Bush all they gotta do is start complaining about the jobs that move overseas and about illegal aliens. In both cases the public is seething and in both cases the ruling class is playing deaf, dumb and blind.


Democrats have an opening. Bush deserves everything coming his way.

[OF]

If Hillary becomes the first woman president, she will also be the last.

- Gabe

[rock jock]

Hillary has always had a Christ-complex. My guess will be that she does indeed jump in, but only due to popular demand, not her own political ambition.:rolleyes: She will be the "Reluctant Jesus" to the masses.

[rick_reno]

Jackie - Damn, you're right!

I'm always mixing up those Democrats and Republicans - can't understand why.

Bush is vulnerable. How vulnerable will be told by the deals he cuts with Congressional Democrats as the election gets closer. Watch closely for what happens with AWB legislation, there could be a deal in the works on it. Here's how the Bush people see it - who are those oppossed to AWB legislation going to vote for if Bush champions a new bill? Hillary? How many Democratic votes will Bush secure if he throws them the AWB bone?

It's going to be an interesting year before the next election.

[fallingblock]

:barf: :barf: :barf:

[jsalcedo]

Hillary would be about the worst possible candidate in the history of US politics.

The American people live in 4 general camps politically. (disclaimer: this does not represent most of THR)

1. Staunch republican... doesn't care if ahhnald belives in welfare state, gun control or muscleman orgies "he's a Publikin an I'm votin for him dern it"

2.Staunch democrat... doesn't matter if he is conservative middle class getting taxed into the poor house and screwed over by every tax and grab democrat on the planet he is voting for a democrat just like his daddy and his daddy before him because Reaganomics and Bush is ruining the country.


3. Totally ignorant airhead non political non issue voter:

I voted for Clinton because he is sooo handsome, or Jimmy Carter was so warm and friendly sounding.. teee heee. Oh that poor crippled man from Kansas I feel sorry for him so I'll vote for him.
Gore reminds me of a little goat I once had as a kid.. I sure loved that goat...

4. No opinion whatsoever, doesn't care, doesn't research, just goes with the flow either way no backbone no convictions. Just votes out of habit
and probably couldn't tell you who he or she voted for in the last 4 elections.

Luckily for us Hillary is not cute, does not engender warm feelings, has a squeaky blood curdling speaking voice, will make most blue collar democrats wake up and vote against her just out of sheer disgust and make every single Republican dust off his or her voter registration card.

[Hkmp5sd]

a squeaky blood curdling speaking voice

Never heard it put quite so eloquently before. :)

[Standing Wolf]

As far as I'm concerned, the sooner Shillary Snopes Clinton goes down in ignominious defeat, the better.

[makarov1]

Hillary is a socialist and many people, particularly in the South, just have a visceral reaction to anything Hillary. I don't think the polls can accurately reflect the depth of Middle America's hatred for Hillary. My suspicion is that Republican strategists are on to this, and are secretly praying that Hillary will get the nomination. A lot can happen between now and the 2004 election. The economy is poised for a turnaround in 2004. If security conditions improve in Iraq (which I believe is likely), the Democrats may be in for one of the worst beatings since Reagan's landslide victory back in the mid-80's.

Even if the situation in Iraq remains chaotic, and the recovery chugs along slowly, I still don't think Hillary will stand much of a chance against Bush. There have been no terrorist attacks (that we know of) on U.S. soil since 9/11. Could the Democrats do any better? Of course not! They're much too preoccupied about gay/lesbian/minority/gun control interests and noble pursuits such as restoring voting rights to ex-convicts/felons to worry about terrorist threats from abroad. They've got other issues that need urgent attention, U.S. natonal security comes in a distant second. I know I've mentioned this before, but it's worth mentioning again; the Democratic party is DEEP TROUBLE. The question remains, is there a leader that can turn around the precipitous downhill slide that the Democrats are in?

[gun-fucious]

if she runs
expect the Mothersday MMM event in DC to be bigger than the elect Al Gore one in 2000

After all Hillary's friend, Donna Dees-Thomases, organized it

[geegee]

the Democratic party is DEEP TROUBLE. The question remains, is there a leader that can turn around the precipitous downhill slide that the Democrats are in?
That's their biggest problem right now, for sure. The guy grabbing all the attention is so far left, even the Dems know that he (Dean) will get waxed by Bush. The most favored powered brokers, who were thought to carry the day (Lieberman and Kerry), for the most part energize very few Dems. Lieberman is a little too conservative for the party Clintonistas (that should tell you plenty about their party), and Kerry comes across simply as a dour, unpleasant, elitist.

Hovering over this spectacle is Hillary, holding all the cards, and just waiting for the most opportune moment to play them. As usual, she won't take the smallest risk unless the outcome is approaching certainty. You'd think that by now there would be plenty of Democrats tired of playing this game with her, a la Nita Loewi in NY State. She was going to run for senator, until her Witchness decided she needed a new gig to keep politically active, for an eventual run to the White House. "Say Anita, would you mind taking one for the team?"

The undeniable truth is there is a huge void of attractive leaders in the Democratic Party, and even fewer that can raise money and energize their base like a Clinton. And that to me says plenty about the people who support this party. geegee

[Hkmp5sd]

An interesting strategy for the democrats, other than Hillary, is they actually talk her into running in 2004 instead of 2008. The logic being that it would be better to let her lose against GWB in 2004 instead of them having to campaign against her in 2008, especially when they don't have to run against a sitting president.

On Hillary's side, she has a better chance of winning if she skips 2004 and runs in 2008 so she doesn't have to beat a popular sitting president.

The down side for her waiting is (1) if a democrat does win in 2004, she would have to wait until 2012 to run and (2) 2008 is also a long way away. At present, she controls the DNC through McAuliffe, which means she controls the democratic party's campaign money. Somehow, she managed to keep McAuliffe as head of the DNC after the catastrophe of the 2002 elections. The odds of him still being there in 2008 are very slim. When he goes, her control of the DNC and it's funds goes also.

[Waitone]

I know I've mentioned this before, but it's worth mentioning again; the Democratic party is DEEP TROUBLE. The question remains, is there a leader that can turn around the precipitous downhill slide that the Democrats are in? Never, never, ever underestimate the stupidity of the republican party. Yes, democrats appear to be in really deep yogurt. Yes, it has a dearth of leadership. Yes, it seems to be out of touch with the middle class. The one thing they have going for them is the genetic ability of republicans to do precisely the most stupid thing possible at precisely the worst time.

I am personnally pleased with the travailles of the democrat party. However I draw no comfort from the thought of having only the republican party on the field. Democrat belief system is well known and quite dangerous to life, liberty, and property. I can't tell you what republicans believe. You tell me which is more dangerous in the long run.

[Tamara]

I dunno, my dream Democratic ticket for '04 is still Gore-Clinton. It ain't gonna happen, but it's pleasant to contemplate.

Anybody remember what happened the last time a vaguely unpopular ex-Vice President was paired up with a token female Congresscritter from New York to run against a sitting GOP president? ;)

[Quartus]

The one thing they have going for them is the genetic ability of republicans to do precisely the most stupid thing possible at precisely the worst time.


And in support of the observation, I point out the candidacy of Bob "It's MY turn to be President" Doh! :rolleyes: Has there ever been a candidate who so transparently wanted to be President because he wanted to be President?



Tam, you're referring to Walter-Geraldo, uh Geraldine? I see some differences. Hillary is HUGELY popular with the party faithful, and has SUPERSTAR name recognition. Geraldo was not well known. ******* is a LOT smarter than Geraldo, too. THAT idiot thought the way to win was to be the opposite of whatever Reagan was, even to the extent of angrily announcing that she had converted from Catholicism to atheism. Hiltlery just ain't that stupid.

Lots of parallels between Walter and Al, though. Weak, ineffective, lousy personality. But watch out for Al, folks - he's been going to charm school and he will be a MUCH more effective candidate next time. He's really improving his persona.

One big difference is that Mondale is an honest man, I think.

And I don't think - despite the polls - that Bush's popularity is as deep and solid as Reagan's was. He's the lesser of several evils, and he's a great releif after Clinton (to MANY in fhe middle), but he's just not the giant that Reagan was.

[seeker_two]

Scariest worst-possible scenario...

Bush approves AWB, Patriot II, and other anti-conservative legislation in the hopes of attracting centrist voters. In the process, he loses his base--who either talk of voting Libertarian or staying away from the polls.

Hillary, deciding that Bush is weak enough to beat, announces her candidacy. As a running mate, she picks someone who has no political experience, lots of name recognition w/ liberals, and is easy for her to control.

In other words....

http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/news-images/hillary%20clinton.jpg http://westwing.bewarne.com/fourth/images/1WESam02pres2.jpg

Clinton/Sheen in '04... :what:


Excuse me while I go purge THAT thought from my stomach... :barf:

[Quartus]

Scariest worst-possible scenario...

Bush approves AWB, Patriot II, and other anti-conservative legislation in the hopes of attracting centrist voters. In the process, he loses his base--who either talk of voting Libertarian or staying away from the polls.


Yup. And when ******* and her machine start using the powers of Patriot and Patriot II (never was a law so hypocritically named) to go after their political enemies and RADICALLY suppress all dissent (in the name of national security, of course), all those "AMERICA IS ALWAYS RIGHT ANYTHING TO STOP THE TERRORISTS IF YOU DON'T AGREE YOU'RE A TRAITOR" types will wonder what hit them.

When their guns are gone and their right to protest is gone and many of them are convicted felons and illegal aliens have full voting rights, some of us will say,

"We tried to tell you. And you told us to take off our tinfoil hats."




:barf:

[chadintex]

Something to consider is the chance at electing a woman president would completly energize many who do not know anything about politics. How many people have you heard gush about how charming Clinton 1 was? Take a look at magazines dedicated to women (cosmo, glamour, etc.) and look at how ******* is glorified. Issues mean very little to very many. The little troll just might have a chance:(

[makarov1]

About six weeks ago I saw an ABC show, (During prime time, I believe) that had G. Stephanopolous interview members of a focus group who had seen an interview with Hillary, and George was asking some pointed questions about Hillary's new book. Inevitably, the question came up as to what motivated Hillary to write her book.

Surprisingly, the first few women that were asked that question stopped just short of calling Hillary an evil b***h. Their responses were along the same lines. That Hillary's book was nothing more than a cold, calculated run for the presidency. Now I don't claim to have a woman's intuition, but when my mind flashed back at the clip of the interview with Hillary, my gut feeling was not a good one. Hillary's responses to questions were EXTREMELY well thought out, so calculated and delivered with such precision that she almost seemed, well, not human.

Apparently, Hillary's calculated responses had an effect on these women, and although I am not predisposed to hating liberals (some of my best friends are liberals) my gut feelings about Hillary go beyond hate to fear. Fear is a powerful motivator, and I think that motivation will drive an unprecedented Republican turnout on election day in order to defeat an evil person. Hillary will likely lose, and probably lose big.

[rick_reno]

Chaintex wrote "The little troll just might have a chance"

A chance? She's got a lot more than a chance. Look no futher than voting demographics in the last election. How many states does a Democrat need to win to take the election? It's not many and they ALMOST did it last time. Bush won 29 states out of 51 possible, but had only 246 electoral votes. Al Whore won only 20 states but had 260 electoral votes. Bush can win all the middle and the south and still lose big time. Look for a minute at where Bush is weak - are those the states with significant job loss? high unemployment? Are those the same states with high electoral college votes? The Democrats can give up the middle and concentrate on their strongholds in the east/west/rust belt and kick Bush out of the White House. Bush is very beatable in this next election and I have been convinced for a long time that Hillary is going to run and she'll win. It's a frightening prospect. This is the one reason I'd like to see the Republicans get their house in order in this Calif. governor election and decide on one person and support him - Bush could use a friend there in the coming election and Crud Boozamonte or Red Davis isn't likely to be his friend. Like some posters have pointed out, the Republicans are good at beating themsleves...

Here's a short article that discusses some of the 2000 election demographics - for those that want to relive it.

http://www.geog.ucsb.edu/~sara/html/mapping/election/map.html

[Ironbarr]

If she'd announce before the California (re)election - the Demos state-wide (and maybe more) would pull out the stops to keep CA Democrat. Should a Republican take the state-house, I'd expect CA's internal political shape would/could be changed (if it's "winner takes all"). Appointees change, trickle-down policies change, and "working" philosophies change... and in this case almost immediately since there's no waiting period for the new admin to ease in and the old to slide out - it's kind of "Get out of my chair - now!". One area that could modify/dilute Demo influence would be Republican registrars and precinct voting officials; there is a full year available for a review of voter registration data. I believe the Demos would want to protect THAT particular item.

My 2 cents.

Tamara, I would have reservations about having a Clinton for (my) vice president - wouldn't you?

-Andy

[Hkmp5sd]

She'll use Bill as her vice president, doncha know. :) Two for the price of one, yet again.

[0007]

Speaking of Charlie and the "west(left) wing", when is the FEC going to get the stones to declare that the dems have to include the cost of the piece of leftist propaganda on their campaign funding declarations.

:cuss:

[Ironbarr]

equal time???

[Partisan Ranger]

If this socialist, anti-freedom hellspawn wh_re does attain the presidency, I assure all here that I will purchase every 'evil black gun' within my grasp prior to her swearing in, so help me G-d. And I will also volunteer and do all I can to defeat her, be it in 04 or 08. I'm young, and by G-d, I love this country. I will do anything to defend Her.

[Sleeping Dog]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a squeaky blood curdling speaking voice
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Never heard it put quite so eloquently before.

Is this referring to Hillary Clinton, or to Ross Perot?

[bountyhunter]

The Mondale - Ferraro train wreck taught us one thing: women don't vote for a woman just because she is a woman. I think Hillary is probably the only one of the major dem candidates who has NO chance of beating GWB.

[Waitone]

All Hillary need do is come within a few percentage points in certain states. From there the lawyers and voter fraud can put her over the top IN THE ABSENCE OF SIGNIFICANT VOTER TURNOUT.

I maintain the 2000 election will be the prototype election of the future for national and key state elections. Just watch what goes on in California. I predict voter fraud will assume a new art form.

[six 4 sure]

I have a feeling that if Hilary runs, there will be a HUGE voter turn out. The $64 question is will more people turn out to vote for her or against her.

six