www.time.com

Hillary in 2008? No Way!
Why the former First Lady should stay in the Senate

Sunday, May. 08, 2005

I was having a fascinating conversation with a Middle East expert about the intricacies of Israel's disengagement from Gaza when I noticed the fellow growing impatient. "Enough of this," he said. "What about Hillary?" Welcome to my life. In airports, on checkout lines, at the doctor's office: "What about Hillary?" (Everywhere except in Washington, where everyone "knows" she's running.) I shrug, I try to avoid the question, I say it's too early—and it is. But you want to know too, right? So here it is. I like Senator Clinton. She has a wicked, ironic sense of humor (in private) and a great raucous belly laugh. She is smart and solid; she inspires tremendous loyalty among those who work for her. She is not quite as creative a policy thinker as her husband, but she easily masters difficult issues—her newfound grasp of military matters has impressed colleagues of both parties on the Armed Services Committee—and she is not even vaguely the left-wing harridan portrayed by the Precambrian right. I also think that a Clinton presidential candidacy in 2008 would be a disaster on many levels.

It would doubtless be a circus, a revisitation of the carnival ugliness that infested public life in the 1990s. Already there are blogs, websites and fund-raising campaigns dedicated to denigrating her. According to the New York Observer last week, these sites aren't getting much traffic—yet. But they will. I remember several conversations with Senator Clinton after her health-care plan was killed 10 years ago, and she was clearly pained—nonplussed by the quality of anger, the sheer hatred, directed against her. That experience would be a walk in the park compared to the vitriol if she ran for President. And while I'd love to see someone confront, and defeat, the free-range haters on the right, the last thing we need is a campaign that would polarize the nation even more. Indeed, we could use the exact opposite—a candidate who would inspire America's centrist majority to rise up against the extreme special interests in both parties.

Senator Clinton's supporters will say she is that candidate. And it is true that Clinton has far more leeway to run as a moderate than almost any other Democrat. Her repositioning on social issues has been overrated—she will have to do more than merely "respect" those who oppose abortion; she will have to propose creative compromises.

But Clinton is a judicious hawk on foreign policy and has learned her lessons on domestic-policy overreach. No less an expert than Newt Gingrich says, "Hillary has become one of the very few people who know what to do about health care." Still, she has some very real political limitations. She has a clenched, wary public presence, which won't work well in an electorate that prizes aw-shucks informality; she isn't a particularly warm or eloquent speaker, especially in front of large audiences. Any woman running for President will face a toughness conundrum: she will constantly have to prove her strength and be careful about showing her emotions. She won't have the luxury of, say, Bill Clinton's public sogginess. It will take a brilliant politician to create a credible feminine presidential style. So far, Senator Clinton hasn't shown the ease or creativity necessary to break the ultimate glass ceiling.

And then there is her husband, a one-man supermarket tabloid. A few weeks ago, the New York Post ran a photo of Bill Clinton leaving a local restaurant with an attractive woman, and the political-elite gossip hounds went berserk. Prominent Democrats—friends of the Clintons—were wringing their hands. "Do we really want to go through all that again?" one asked me. I don't know—should the sins of the husband be visited upon the wife? Absent any evidence, the former President should be considered guilty until proved really guilty. But there is another problem: What role would the big guy play in a Hillary Clinton Administration? Would he reform health care? Does anyone believe that a man with such a huge personality would have a less active role in her Administration than she had in his?

"You mean she can't run just because her husband was President?" a Hillary supporter yelled at me. "That is the most incredibly sexist thing I've ever heard." Yes and no. My guess is that Hillary Clinton would roll into Iowa with an incredible, Howard Dean-like head of steam in January 2008, and then the folks—yes, even the Democratic base—would give her a very close look and conclude that a Hillary presidency would be slightly dodgy. The Clinton line in 1992 was, Buy one, get one free. We've already had that co-presidency—for its full, constitutional eight years. What's more, I suspect there would be innate and appropriate populist resistance to this slouch toward monarchial democracy. There is something fundamentally un-American—and very European—about the Clintons and the Bushes trading the office every eight years, with stale, familiar corps of retainers, supporters and enemies. Bill Clinton was a good President. Hillary Clinton is a good Senator. But enough already. (And that goes for you too, Jeb.)

No more Clintons, No more Bushes. Can everybody say PRESIDENT AL GORE in 2008???

I can say it, and I can see it. ;)

I hope this will suffice. :)

True justice would be 16 years of an AL GORE Presidency, for all he's been through and for the good of the country as well as the world. :good:

I wonder who those Clinton era Senators will choose though, I suspect they want to side with Gore.
But It's likely that they will decide to side with Hillary instead.....

A little late, and a bit off-topic, but I found this interesting little tidbit at James Wolcott's blog: Note these graphs:

My worst fears about Missus Clinton have come true -- she is a grandstanding, political opportunist. God, we need Al badly in 2008!!!!

I'm begining to think that Hillary-paranoia is like the dark side of the force. It appeals to dark emotions such as hatred and if you let it it will consume your entire being perverting all intelligent thought. And just like the Dark Side of the Force only it serves the Evil Emperor who wishes to take away our freedoms.

I say let her run a "diversion" for us in the 2008 primaries...The Fat Drug Addict, Flannity & Savage will be sooooo busy yumming it up and throwing TRASH on her the LPOTUS will be able to do an "end-around"...and then he will come in with HIS ARMY of followers (that's us folks), and rush to Senator Clinton's aid...thus Al becomes the "hero"....Senator Clinton becomes "positioned" to follow...and ALL will enter thye White House TOGETHER! You see my friends THAT is what BU$H & the Rove Cabal along with their Neocon Armies FEAR MOST! WATCHING A UNITED DEMOCRATIC FRONT LED BY AL GORE RE-TAKING THE WHITE HOUSE IN 2008! :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:

WE WILL MARCH IN TOGETHER IN 2008! ALL OF US!

I can see it now PRESIDENT GORE marching down Pennsylvania Avenue LOCK ARMED with SENATORS CLINTON & KERRY, And DR.DEAN!...& REV SHARPTON & JACKSON!...GENERAL CLARK!...AND WE WILL FOLLOW! AND TELL BU$H TO GET OUT!

:dance: :dance: :dance: :dance: :dance: :dance:

Well said Paraclete! I totally agree with you. I also think that the sexist bigotry aimed at Hilary in this thread shows how far women have yet to go to achieve real equality.

What's with all this pro-Hillary postings?

We are not trying to create fractions in the party, but the reality is everyone in the party wants to become the president. And if you want to win the primaries, then you gotta fight for it. It's obvious that Hillary is already one step ahead of Gore. We have waited for years to see Gore getting the job he deserved. You are not going to see Kerry and Clinton hugging each other during the nomination race because it is a race to the presidency. There will be no mercy at all.

Do you people actually believe that Clintons will let people like Dr. Dean and General Clark stand in Hillary's way to the presidency? It's obvious that Hillary is already thinking about it now and if Gore does not act accordingly, he will be fading away from our memories soon. If you people are supporting Gore's bid to White House, then you've got to be real about it.

K-G, you fail to note that Hilary has repeatedly said that she's NOT running for President! Your attacks on her are nothing short of blatant sexism and they indicate how far women still have to go to achieve real equality. For, the record, Al Gore is the only democrat at the national level who's holding Bush the thief accountable for what he's done to our country. Al Gore is in far better shape for 2008 than you seem to understand. With the Kerry 2004 debacle, the don't fight back wing of the democraic party has been seriously descredited among rank and file democrats who are fed up with the totally failed don't fight back strategy. They want a candidate who'll stand up and fight back.

Sexism? What are YOU TALKING ABOUT....?
I never said that Hillary was not qualified to be a president, but Al Gore will be so much more qualified there will be no discussion about it. We Al Gore supporters know what obstacles he has ahead of him, and people like you who has no sense of whatever is ahead will soon fall victims in the grand scheme of politics. Hillary vs Al Gore, well, that's a no brainer.

The one thing that won't happen is a brokered convention if Hillary runs.

If Al Gore is going to run, it will have to be in the primaries and he better make some noise relatively soon.

All the ones will roll over once the 06 are finished, and everyone starts announcing officially.
None will stand in the way of Hillary except for Al, but mark my words, it has to be during the primaries. She will quickly get the delegates needed.

I really think alot of Gore fans here are being a little naive about Hillary in the democratic primaries.

She will have the blue states very early, and the big states (NY CA, Fl IF there is no real competition.)

As Teddy found out in 1980, it is almost impossible to change delegates once it starts (West Wing TV besides the fact, that is not real).

And, with the super delegates, and the for whatever reason love for Bill Clinton, if al is going to do it, it must be early.

Wish I believed otherwise, but if she runs, and for all intents she will run, but will not say anything until after she wins re-election(by landslide in 06.)

Matter of fact, Hillary, she can wait the longest to officially announce, because her
team is already in place.

It's not being pro-Hillary or naive about Hillary, it is simply not being driven by Hillary-paranoia or believing the spin from the corporate and right wing media. I don't buy into all the Hillary paranoia. For the most part it is manufactured by right-wing pundits. Slate I don't believe Rush, O'Reilly or Hannity about anything else, why would I believe anything they have to say about Hillary Clinton.

And to date she's done nothing to indicate that she is running. She hasn't been going to New Hampshire or Iowa to make speeches. She hasn't been lining up precinct captains in those states. All she has been doing is what a Senator running for re-election would do.

And as noted by Media Matters, even her supposed shift to the center is being manufactured by the media. http://mediamatters.org/items/printable/200505310002

James makes a good point. Why is everyone listening to Rush, Hannity, O'Reilly, ect who are saying Hillary is running in 2008 now? Why is right to believe this and not the other garbage they usually say? I don't believe them on anything personally.

Well, to be accurate, it's not only the conservatives who are talking about Hillary running. It also comes from liberal noise-makers like Donna Brazille, Paul Begala, etc. Don't get me wrong: I'm not saying that means she's running. Everything I've heard would lead me to believe that she either hasn't made up her mind yet or she doesn't intend to run. Not in '08, anyway. I think she knows how divisive she is, and I think she knows she doesn't have much support outside of a couple of the "big blues" such as NY and maybe CA, and even those, I think, are questionable.

So I don't think people around here have their heads up their butts. It's just that without more to go on, there's really not much we can say about it.

But you'll note that Donna & Paul only comment about it when asked by Novak or other conservative pundit.

I live in NY NJ she is obviously running. I can see and hear her with my own senses. There is a zero percent chance she is not running. Every move she makes is not to get re-elected, but to become President.

And-of course she is limiting her trips to Iowa and NH. That would be too obvious.

Meanwhile she has invited people from those states to DC for fundraisers.

Like d'uh.

1 plus 1 equals 2.

What other reason would she be moving toward the center?
She already has a 70 percent favorable rating in NY state.

I live in NYC and it is not obvious to me that she is running. Maybe she is, maybe she isn't. There is no conclusive evidence either way.

It is also not unusual for a Senator facing re-election to invite people from other states to fundraisers. It's when she starts fundraising for Dems in NH and Iowa that would indicate a possible run.

Also, if you read the Media Matters article, it clearly shows that she is not moving to the center but just restating long held positions and the media is mischaracterizing it as a move to the center. Now I'll trust Media Matters before I trust the likes of Chris Matthews or Tim Russert, who did all they could to trash Gore.

I believe if any Democrat candidate announces that he/she will be running for President in 08 before the congressional elections in 06, the advantage will go first to the Republicans and then to other potential Democrat candidates. As James observed on an earlier post it is usually conservative pundits that keep pushing for an early commitment. This would of course allow the Republicans and their corporate media allies to trash any viable Democrat candidate over an extended period of time.
Al Gore enjoys a major luxury along with Hillary and that is global name recoginition, they do not have to worry so much about getting their names in front of the people early.

Funny how this forum is moderated by people without who dont have a sense of reality.
Hillary wil obviously announce her plan to run for president after the miderm election.
So the only suggestion for you is to brace yourself. Coz we sure are and we will have seen this coming for a long time.

This forum is moderated by intelligent people who are driven by more than Hillary-paranoia. By people who believe in looking at the facts before drawing a conclusion rather than spin facts to fit their preconceived ideas. By people who take what the right wing & corporate media says with a grain of salt rather than swallow it hook, line and sinker because it feeds into their existing hatreds & bias.

This was "counter productive" so I am washing out the post! <_<

Sorry James for taking it personally, but I thought you knew me better by now! :elvis:

(By the way if you want to talk positively about AL then I am open to that)...

Geez, what did I miss? Why is the Paraclete so upset?

Well regardless time to start the anti-Clinton campaign now.The DLC is outta touch if they want to support Repug platforms tell them to switch party affiliation and get out of the way.. <_<
Democrats pick their nominee not the media or the fascists at fox and clear channel.

Here's a link to the DLC website http://www.dlc.org/ and here's a link to the RNC's website http://www.rnc.org/ . Anyone that bothers to take the time to read both sites will see the vast differences that exist on most issues between the DLC and the RNC.

It is better to plan for Al to battle Hillary, then to think otherwise.

Al is the only one who needs to declare early, so as to beat the others to the punch.

Remember how early Al endorsed Dean (A great move, even if Dean did not win.)
However, Dean won't ever forget that (advantage Al).

If Al announces before Hillary, he puts her in awkward position.
If Al announces after Hillary, she is going to have the advantage. Then the papers will make it a fight.

If Al announces first, he could possilbe stop Hillary (although you can say anything you like, I do not see anything saying she is not running (and I don't mean in the press.)

Why shouldn't she run?

same as Why shouldn't Al run?

You have to admit, the 2 are way ahead of everyone else namewise and elsewhere.

Its the same as 2000 election night.
You can say Bush won, but WE all know Gore won in Florida. Same thing.

I too will never forget how the DLC stabbed Gore in the back.

He doesn't need any of them to win, and he should not accept any of their help either.

He could win it on his own in a landslide.

He could even say things like "remember how they laughed at the words "lock box"
Well, don't you wish the surplus had been in there?

He and Dean could do it grass root style. Do a combo of the Jerry Brown 1992
and Howard Dean 2004 run, however, with Gore at the head, you have a more solid foundation to start. Plus, none of the people who voted for Gore in 2000 would not vote for him in 2008.(and Gore won in 2000).

Although it would be nice if the dems were united behind Gore, if he has to go through Hillary and Edwards and Kerry, so be it. If he runs, he will win. If he doesn't run, Hillary will win.

On Meet the Press today (no link yet, this is from watching it, and I still cannot cut and paste. It does not work, neither do the other shortcuts, at least on this computer).

Maureen Dowd, David Brooks and Thomas Friedman all of the NY Times were on.

Maureen Dowd(she is liberal side) said Hillary will need to explain her Iraq vote
and have to explain how the Iraq constitution is anti-women, in that it brings women back to 1776 and not now.

Also, all of the 3,(the other 2 from the Times are conservatives) said every single candidate in office except for the lowly rated Feingold have to answer for Iraq
(and they used Cindy Sheehan talking about Congress explaining their vote to
box it in)

Then, Russert said there is one other person, and people are talking about Al Gore being the anti-war candidate. Russert actually put Al right in the middle of the 2008
race!!! (Gonna start a sep. thread onthis)

Go, Tim! :clap:

Thanks for posting this, ReelectGore (I wish I could come up with a good short-hand for you!). Some of us were still snoozing when that was on this a.m. :rolleyes: