|
Clinton-Clark in 2004? Posted: September 22, 2003 © 2003 WorldNetDaily.com Asked about political chatter that Hillary might
enter the race for the Democratic presidential nomination, ex-President Clinton
volunteered, "That's a decision for her to make." And that has set the cat down among the pigeons. For, presumably, Hillary had already decided. And
the answer was an unqualified "no." During the 2000 election, and
again and again since, she has pledged to New Yorkers she will serve out her
full Senate term and run for re-election in 2006. A "Second Thoughts" conference appears to
be going on in the Clinton household about the wisdom of waiting five more
years to return to a White House from which they were evicted in Y2K. Why may the Clintons be taking another look at 2004?
First, no clear front-runner has emerged from the
Democratic field. Second, polls show Hillary would be the strongest candidate
Democrats could run against President Bush and she could win the nomination. A
Quinnipiac survey, taken before Gen. Wesley Clark entered, showed Hillary would
snag 45 percent of the Democratic primary vote, with her nine rivals in single
digits. Third, centrist Democrats appear alarmed that Howard
Dean could be painted by the Bush campaign in such lurid colors that Democrats
could suffer the kind of thrashing in 2004 they took during the Reagan Decade.
In three presidential elections in the 1980s, Democrats never once won more
than 10 states. Against an incumbent Reagan in 1984, they won Minnesota and the
District of Columbia. The big impediment in the way of a Hillary run is
her solemn pledge not to run. Breaking his pledge back in Arkansas in 1991 did
not faze Bill, but it apparently does bother the former first lady. But Bill is out testing the water for her, saying
publicly he has run into New Yorkers who would readily release Hillary from her
pledge, if she would save the country from George Bush. But then, it was not
Bill or those New Yorkers who made the commitment to serve out her term. Another sign the Clintons are considering a run is
the presence of numerous old Clinton-Gore hands in the Clark campaign. Of the
general himself, Bill says, "He is brilliant, he is brave, he is good, and
he has a sack full of guts." Is Wesley Clark a placeholder for Hillary? Is his
campaign the recruiting office for her campaign? And is his reward to be the
vice presidential nomination, or secretary of state or defense, in a Hillary
Rodham Clinton administration? There are other reasons to believe Bill does not
want to wait until 2008. An observer who saw him work that black church in Los
Angeles with Gray Davis found him "at the top of his game." Is Bill the sort of patient, deferential fellow
ready to wait five years, with all that can happen, before making history again
by aiding his wife in the recapture of the White House, and thereby vindicating
him? Does he really want to risk the possibility that Howard Dean or another
Democrat could accomplish what he himself did in 1992: defeat a president
thought to be unbeatable a year earlier? If another Democrat is elected in 2004, Bill and
Hill are history. For that president would eclipse Bill for the next four years
and run for re-election in 2008, shouldering Hillary aside until 2012, when she
would be 65 and Bill would be a senior citizen on full Social Security. What would Hillary risk by exercising her female
prerogative, changing her mind and running for the nomination? Her reputation for ruthless ambition would be
confirmed and her credibility shredded. As she campaigned, radio and cable talk
shows would be playing, with mocking regularity, her pledge not to run. It
would be the political equivalent of George H.W. Bush's 1988
"Read-my-lips-no-new-taxes!" pledge, rerun again and again in '92. Second, it would anger and alienate all those
Democrats – Dick Gephardt, John Kerry, Joe Lieberman, John Edwards
– who took Hillary at her word and ran on the assumption she would not
get in. Supporters of Howard Dean, full of fire and passion, would see her
entry as a "Stop Dean!" exercise, cheating them of a nomination they
had virtually won. Third, were Hillary to be crushed by George W. in
2004, the defeat might end all prospects of a run in 2008, which looks to be a
better year for a Democrat. Yet, whatever may be said against Hillary, the lady
does not lack for nerve. Some of us thought she would never dare to try to
become senator from a state where she had never lived. Clinton-Clark in 2004? Not a bad bet, if you can get
some odds. Charles Mims |
<<image001.gif>>
________________________________
Changes to your subscription (unsubs, nomail, digest) can be made by going to http://sandboxmail.net/mailman/listinfo/sndbox_sandboxmail.net
