Will Haillary run? (pretty good analysis)

[rick_reno]

Will Hillary run? (pretty good analysis)

http://www.msnbc.com/news/971037.asp

WASHINGTON, Sept. 24 — There is a school of political thought that sees the 2004 presidential race in its purest form of conventional wisdom: that Wesley Clark, the fresh-faced and thick-necked general who entered the race last week, is the new Democratic front-runner, stealing the fire from Howard Dean (the old front-runner), who stole the fire from John Kerry (the old old front-runner), who himself is suddenly burning brighter than George W. Bush (the Old Inevitable) in a recent poll. But that calculation ignores a truth held fervently by many Very Savvy (or Very Bored) prognosticators: This is all about Hillary Rodham Clinton.

IT’S ALWAYS ABOUT Hillary Rodham Clinton, the proverbial Rorschach test for the nation’s stark divisions and creaky evolutions. Everything else is just annoying subtext.
And rest assured, says this alternative wisdom: Hillary is running for president. In 2004.
Hillary in 2004. It is, once again, a hot notion, being stoked from the hopeful left, the baiting right and the (choose your adjective) media. It doesn’t matter that a spokesman for Sen. Clinton says the New York Democrat will not run for president in 2004.
Or that this echoes similar proclamations from the former first lady herself on at least 138 occasions since the beginning of 2001, according to a database search of U.S. newspapers and magazine stories.
Or that these include such unambiguous denials as “I am absolutely ruling it out†(to the Associated Press on Aug. 29), and “I am absolutely ruling it out†(to the New York Daily News, a day later).
Hillary hysteria doesn’t disappear. It merely subsides, like a cold sore.
There are periodic eruptions, as in recent days. Bill Clinton, the Very Savvy (or Very Bored) former president, gave a hedgy non-denial last week when asked if his wife would run.
“That’s really a decision for her to make,†he said. He also was overheard saying that Hillary and Wesley Clark are the only stars of the Democratic Party.

CLARK AS STALKING HORSE
Clark, who is from Arkansas, is a key protagonist in the latest wave of Clinton conspiracy theories. It is obvious, say some Hillary theorists, that Clark, who is being advised by several former Clinton aides, is in the race for no other reason than to slow down Howard Dean. And that will muddle the 10-candidate field, which will lead to the inevitable drafting of Hillary. Who will then reward Clark by making him her running mate.
William Safire advanced a Clark hypothesis in the New York Times on Monday. Rudy Giuliani bought in on Imus. Congressional Quarterly columnist Craig Crawford yakety-yakked the notion on MSNBC and CBS.
Which, in turn, excited Adam Parkhomenko, a student at Northern Virginia Community College, who is organizing one of the several Draft Hillary movements — and who, in turn, is being flooded with media calls.
“Bush is vulnerable,†says Parkhomenko, 17. If a Democrat wins in 2004, Parkhomenko says, Hillary won’t run against him in 2008. By 2012, she will be 65 years old. So 2004, he says, is Hillary’s time. It’s all crystal clear, Parkhomenko says.
As it is to Crawford, who laid out the Wesley Clark as stalking horse scenario in his CQ column last week. Not only will Clark’s candidacy slow down Dean, Crawford wrote, it also will marginalize the first-tier likes of John Kerry, Richard Gephardt and Joe Lieberman. It will win Hillary more time to wriggle out of her promise not to run.
“So, basically, the four-star general is a dupe for the Clintons,†says CNN’s Paul Begala, a former Bill Clinton aide, waxing sarcastic. “I think that’s my favorite theory.â€
But Crawford is insistent. “If Bush looks beatable, I don’t think Hillary can resist running,†he said in an interview.

SEEING UFOS
In his column, Crawford compared the belief that Hillary will run in 2004 to a belief in the existence of UFOs. “But on Wednesday,†he wrote, “I am sure I saw a UFO flying over the head of Clark as he announced his quest for the presidency.†On MSNBC, Crawford put the odds of Clinton running at “better than 50 percent.â€
Which, in turn, made Adam Parkhomenko even more excited.
“Bush is vulnerable,†says Parkhomenko, who will be selling Hillary for President 2004 bumper stickers, buttons and T-shirts at the Democratic presidential debate in New York tomorrow night. He is going door-to-door, gathering names for a petition that he hopes to present to the former first lady in an effort to persuade her to run. “I’ve read a lot and watched a lot,†says Parkhomenko, who is convinced that he will cast his first-ever presidential ballot for Hillary Rodham linton in November 2004. “It makes perfect sense to me.â€

© 2003 The Washington Post Company

 

[Danimal]

Here's another article along those same lines that I thought was interesting....

It's Puppetmaster Hillary for Vice President in 2004

by Ben Shapiro
Link
September 24, 2003

Bill and Hillary are behind Wesley Clark, 100 percent. Bill Clinton calls Clark, along with Hillary, one of the Democratic Party's "two stars." Clinton lackey Rep. Charles Rangel has endorsed Clark -- with Hillary's permission. The Clinton campaign staff is working for Clark. Clark announced his presidential ambitions in Little Rock, the Clinton fiefdom.

Something fishy is going on. The Clintons are never politically altruistic, especially when it's Hillary's future on the line.

Why would the Clintons back Clark? It doesn't make much sense. After all, 2008, not 2004, is Hillary's year. Hillary should have been overjoyed that Howard Dean was leaving the other eight Democratic dwarves in the dust. Dean had no chance of winning a general election. There would be no Democratic incumbent to fight in 2008. Hillary could snatch the 2008 nomination with one hand tied behind her back.

But if Clark wins the nomination, he could pose as a moderate and actually win, nullifying all of Hillary's aspirations before they get off the ground. Hillary should have opposed a Clark campaign.

But she doesn't. Which means that Hillary wants in on 2004. Why? Not because unemployment is high. Not because Iraqi rebuilding is difficult. Not because Bush is vulnerable.

Hillary wants in on 2004 for one reason and one reason only: Rudy Giuliani. Hillary has to run for re-election to the Senate in 2006. Giuliani is the obvious choice for a candidate to oppose her. And Hillary knows that if she goes up against Giuliani, she will get her head handed to her on a silver platter. Polls show that if Giuliani challenges Hillary, Hillary will lose by a whopping 17 percent margin, 57-40. Hillary can't afford to wait until 2008. She could be out of a job in 2006. Her political career could be over.

So Hillary has to be on the 2004 ticket. That's why Hillary and Bill are backing Wesley Clark. They want Clark to win the nomination in a landslide. To that end, they've stacked Clark's campaign with former Clinton cronies. They've made it clear that the general is their man. Here's the quid pro quo: They want Hillary to get the vice presidential slot on Clark's 2004 ticket.

The Clintons are not looking for a Hillary presidential campaign in 2004. They don't believe Hillary can win in 2004. If the Clintons believed that, they never would have been suckered into making hard-and-fast promises about the 2004 presidential election. The Clintons have seen the polls showing that in a head-to-head matchup, Bush would slap Hillary down. And that's even with Bush reeling from a weakened economy and public scrutiny about the Iraq war. The Gen. Clark gambit is not designed to shoehorn Hillary into the presidential nomination.

No, the Clintons want Hillary in the second slot. If her ticket loses, she can claim that it was Clark, not she, who lost the election. Her political career will not be over. A former vice-presidential nominee still carries weight in the Democratic Party. Edmund Muskie was the early Democratic front-runner in 1972 after running with Hubert Humphrey in 1968. Jimmy Carter lost the 1980 election, but his running mate, Walter Mondale, became the presidential nominee in 1984. Joe Lieberman still carries some weight in the Democratic Party despite his 2000 loss. Hillary's political future will be safe even if a Clark-Hillary ticket goes down in flames.

If her ticket wins, Hillary can wait until 2012 to be president. Another four years won't make a difference. After eight years of gathering her forces around her, a Hillary campaign in 2012 would make a Saddam Hussein election campaign look like a Libertarian Party presidential run.

For the Clintons, politics revolves around maximizing personal power while enduring only slight political risk. Hillary isn't likely to jump the gun and run in 2004 as president. She can't afford to wait until 2008 and run for president then because Rudy Giuliani could put her out of politics in 2006. The only way to assure her political future is to put her name on the 2004 ticket -- as vice president. Whether her ticket wins or loses in 2004, Hillary wins as long as she's in the No. 2 slot. For the Clintons, that's all that matters.

 

[Baba Louie]

http://www.msnbc.com/news/971384.asp?vts=092420031625

GWB's numbers dropping weekly or so it seems (for those who favor polls and such); reminiscent of his one term father and we all remember who followed GHB in the Oval Office.

If she runs, she will win. I recall several conversations back in 92 hearing women say they voted for Clinton because he was cuter than GHB or Perot and that pretty much sums up the political intelligence of our nation IMO.
Granted, Perot helped divide the conservatives, and Clinton had 43% or thereabouts (IIRC) but I remember listening to Clinton speak and thinking, "we're in trouble here" as the man has a golden tongue and seemed to fill the middle (not too far left, not too far right) of the road being all things to all people.

She ran in NY as a carpetbagger and won. Lifelong resident of NY and all.

Break out the jars of vaseline and BOHICA.

If it's true that we get the government we deserve and that the President reflects the average American (I said average, not good, bad or indifferent) then she'll carry the "get GWB out of office" on that platform alone. Followed by a sweeping change in the Senate (only take three of four seats) and maybe the House as well.

Clark Who?
Dean?
Gore?

Who's a name we ALL know, who has OJT and knows a vast right wing conspiracy when she sees one?

HRC, she's our Man, if she can't do it, nobody can.

The WOT will soon be playing in your neighborhood. Tag, you're it.

Adios

 

[Splat Shot]

Tell you one thing, if I was Clark and somehow won the 04 election with Hillary as my VP, the first thing I'd do is get a food taster and a lot of extra SS protection 24x7. Sure wouldn't want to end up like old Vince Foster in my first year as president.