Hillary Rodham should be President.

[mrbitterness]

She's not saying anything.

And perhaps she likes to keep us in suspense.

But someday, one day after she decides that being a Senator is not challenging enough for her, she might take part in the election campaign.

Afterall, she's the former first lady. Afterall, she represents all the women in the United States.

Even if she loses to Howard Dean or Weasley Clark, it doesn't really affect her emotional well-being. As long as she believes that someday she could prove to Bill Clinton that she can do his old job better than him.

 

[acludem]

I just have to ask...is the fact that you spelled Gen. Clark's first name Weasley a simple spelling error, or a freudian slip?:

acludem

 

[injury]

I imagine she will run in 2008.

I would wonder what losing an election would due to her self image.

"Afterall, she represents all the women in the United States"
Thats humerous, if for no other reason than every woman I know would love to claw her eyes out.

 

[X.P. Alidocious]

Hillary doesn't represent me any more than Weasley Clark does .

 

[mrbitterness]

Originally posted by acludem
I just have to ask...is the fact that you spelled Gen. Clark's first name Weasley a simple spelling error, or a freudian slip?:

acludem

Sorry, do enlighten me.I don't get it.

 

[mrbitterness]

Originally posted by X.P. Alidocious
Hillary doesn't represent me any more than Weasley Clark does .

Why is this so? I'm curious.

 

[jimnyc]

Remember the argument about polls last month?

Is it safe for me to say now that 9 out of 10 Americans will vote for Bush?

 

[janeeng]

I think Al Sharpton would have better chances than Hillary! haha! She would NEVER get my vote!

 

[wonderwench]

The most interesting thing about the 2004 election is/will be the battle for control of the Democratic Party.

My assessment:

Given the handling of national security issues and the improving economy, Bush will win with 60%+ of the popular vote, and will take at least 44 states in electoral votes.

Bill, Hillary and their horrid little lap dog Terry McAwful are doing everything they can to ensure that Dean will lose. I suspect at this point, they have pretty much accepted that Dean will win the nomination; their annointed one, Clark, has proven to be a flash in the pan.

So the real struggle is for control of the DNC. The character assisinations against Dean are not coming from the GOP - they are being lobbed by other Dems. The other Dems would love to co-opt Dean's rather impressive grassroots money raising apparatus. Hillary also has the agenda of not wanting a Dem to win in 2004, unless it is her. It would be difficult for her to run against an incumbent Dem.

 

[americangirl024]

First of all, where does the "representative of American women" come from? And I'd really like if someone could answer this question for me: why is Wesley Clark seen as the Clinton answer to Howard Dean? Howard Dean is very similar politically to Bill Clinton. I don't understand why Bill and Hillary would back someone like Clark, when his record is far more conservative than Bill's ever was. Not to mention the fact that Clark is an army general (do the words "draft dodger" ring any bells?). Another thing: why are all the democrats of this country trying their best to make sure that Howard Dean loses the nomination. He is the ONLY Democrat who could hope to defeat Bush in the fall. If someone could enlighten me on these issues, i'd be grateful.

 

[eric]

First of all welcome to the board !

The generally held belief is the Dean could not win against Bush, he is too far to the left, whereas Clark is more of a centrist. This is why they don't want Dean to win the primaries. Furthermore there is a fear that if Dean would win he will control the Dem party and the Clintons and McCauliff would lose their control.

 

[wonderwench]

My theory about the Dems:

The 2004 battle is not for the White House, it is for control of the DNC and the Dem money generating machine. Dean is not a Clintonista. His grassroots funding has rocked the Clintons' world. If Dean becomes the candidate, Terry McAuliffe is out and the Clintons' lose their franchise.

So, two scenarios -

1. The Clintons' perceive that Bush is strong. They will back a candidate who will enable them to maintain "ownership" of the DNC chair but will have not chance of beating Bush.

2. If the economy falters or things go to hell in Iraq, then Bush is vulnerable. The Clintons' again have an interest in keeping the Dems divisive. At the convention,, a phony, previously choreographed "draft" of Hillary will be put forward in order to unify the party. She will put on a faux stoic face and state that she is ready to Fight For All of You! What the Clintons' will fail to realize is that the actual reality of Hillary's candidacy will cause support for Bush to increase. Despite her popularity among certain groups - she is far too loathed by moderate voters.

In either case, Bush wins.

 

[americangirl024]

I find it rather perplexing when I hear Wesley Clark described as a "centrist" candidate. He is one of the most conservative democrats I can ever remember rising to this level of national recognition. And why do most people perceive Howard Dean as a leftist candidate? On most issues, he's really quite moderate. In fact, he reminds me of President Clintion in the early to mid 1990's. He supported the first Iraq war, when most Democrats in the House and Senate were against it. The man was elected to five terms as governor of Vermont, so he must be doing something right.

 

[eric]

He is one of the most conservative democrats I can ever remember

That is exactly why he is a centrist, in the middle of the political spectrum !

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by americangirl024
First of all, where does the "representative of American women" come from? And I'd really like if someone could answer this question for me: why is Wesley Clark seen as the Clinton answer to Howard Dean? Howard Dean is very similar politically to Bill Clinton. I don't understand why Bill and Hillary would back someone like Clark, when his record is far more conservative than Bill's ever was. Not to mention the fact that Clark is an army general (do the words "draft dodger" ring any bells?). Another thing: why are all the democrats of this country trying their best to make sure that Howard Dean loses the nomination. He is the ONLY Democrat who could hope to defeat Bush in the fall. If someone could enlighten me on these issues, i'd be grateful.

Because he's not involved in the DNC powerstructure and he's not a Clinton. It's purely about control of the DNC, did you read WW's post?

 

[Zhukov]

Clark believes abortions should be allowed, no questions asked, up to the point of the baby crowning. How is that conservative or even centrist? That's way way left.

Clark [now] believes [says] that we should never have gone into Iraq in the first place. That's pretty left to.

Clark's fiscal plan involves 5% tax hikes for the very richest people, which has been pretty much proven to reduce the amount of tax revunue. And the elmination of any income tax on the poorest 50%, who contribute about 4% in revunue. Pretty liberal.

It doesn't really matter though. Clark was thrown out as a sacrifice, someone to be beaten by Bush, so Hillary wouldn't have to worry about challenging an incumbent democrat in 2008. She'd rather not wait till 2012. If Dean wins the nomination, he'll still lose, so either way Hillary wins. There may be alot of truth in speculation about the power struggle within the DNC between the Clinton base and the insurgency Dean's candidacy and Gore's betrayal represents.

 

[bobhard2001]

There is no doubt that the Clinton's must be plotting to control the Democratic Party into the 2008 election. Clark is the man! If he can get the nod for this years election, his loss to Bush will set the stage for Bill and Hill to continue to control the MONEY into 2008. Hillary will have a struggle winning her seat in New York. However, even if she losses she will still be in aposition to go for the Gold in 2008. I sure hope the Republicans can groom someone to oppose the Dems in 08. So far, I haven't seen anyone that can continue the reign.

 

[mrbitterness]

Originally posted by acludem
I just have to ask...is the fact that you spelled Gen. Clark's first name Weasley a simple spelling error, or a freudian slip?:

acludem

Ah.. Pardon my err. And thank you for pointing that out.

 

[mrbitterness]

Originally posted by Zhukov
Clark believes abortions should be allowed, no questions asked, up to the point of the baby crowning. How is that conservative or even centrist? That's way way left.

Clark [now] believes [says] that we should never have gone into Iraq in the first place. That's pretty left to.

Clark's fiscal plan involves 5% tax hikes for the very richest people, which has been pretty much proven to reduce the amount of tax revunue. And the elmination of any income tax on the poorest 50%, who contribute about 4% in revunue. Pretty liberal.

It doesn't really matter though. Clark was thrown out as a sacrifice, someone to be beaten by Bush, so Hillary wouldn't have to worry about challenging an incumbent democrat in 2008. She'd rather not wait till 2012. If Dean wins the nomination, he'll still lose, so either way Hillary wins. There may be alot of truth in speculation about the power struggle within the DNC between the Clinton base and the insurgency Dean's candidacy and Gore's betrayal represents.

Yea, it makes sense.

But then. why not spread communism my friend, and Kerry would be the next Stalin.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

She's not saying anything.

And perhaps she likes to keep us in suspense.

But someday, one day after she decides that being a Senator is not challenging enough for her, she might take part in the election campaign.

Afterall, she's the former first lady. Afterall, she represents all the women in the United States.

Even if she loses to Howard Dean or Weasley Clark, it doesn't really affect her emotional well-being. As long as she believes that someday she could prove to Bill Clinton that she can do his old job better than him.

She would've lost in 04 to a more popular more experienced president. The nation hadn't been zombified quite enough yet to vote for her just cos she was a woman either.