NYT: One Clinton, at Least, Finds 2008 Run Worth Discussing

[DeepModem Mom]

One Clinton, at Least, Finds 2008 Run Worth Discussing
By RAYMOND HERNANDEZ
Published: June 3, 2005


WASHINGTON, June 2 - In two television interviews this week, former President Bill Clinton talked up Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton's presidential prospects and left open the possibility that she would run in 2008.

While Mr. Clinton made it clear that his wife had not decided what to do about 2008, he said she would make a "magnificent" president and even mused aloud about how she might lay the groundwork for a national run.

In the process, Mr. Clinton seemed to stray from the strict party line put forth by Mrs. Clinton and her tight-lipped cadre of advisers: that she is totally focused on getting re-elected to the Senate in 2006 - and not even thinking about 2008....

***

In discussing the matter, Mr. Clinton suggested that his wife follow the strategy George W. Bush employed when he ran for a second term as governor of Texas in 1998: He refused to rule out the possibility of cutting short his second term in office to become president.

"If she wants to entertain that, she ought to do pretty much what President Bush did," Mr. Clinton said during an appearance on CNN's "Larry King Live" on Wednesday....


http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/03/nyregion/metrocampaigns/03hillary.html

[In_The_Wind]

1. I agree

[wallwriter]

2. I'd vote for Hillary, but she better

have a brilliant strategy to defuse the Swift Boat Veterans crowd yesterday if she expects to be much more than a charred carcass by election day.

[lancdem]

3. Yes, and her aides know that

I saw an excellent quote from Mandy Grunwald, a Hillary adviser and a key aide from the '92 campaign, alluding to that.

BTW, this article is misleading. I saw the Larry King interview. Clinton said numerous times that it's bad strategy to think beyond the next election. Only when Larry gave him a scenario assuming she wins in 2006, did he talk about it.

[iamjoy]

5. Gotta Love The Spin

They ask the Clintons about hypothetical situations for Hillary running, then, when they don't catagorically rule out a bid say the Clintons are discussing it.


This should make me angry, but all it does is make me shake my head in amusemed exasperation.

[Mizmoon]

4. She was magnificent in her NY Senate campaign

and those bastards were AFTER her.

I think not nominating her is a big mistake and playing into the GOP's hands.

Remember when she sold a million copies of her biography? I thought the GOPers were going to turn green!

[PATRICK]

6. Clintons are still too clueless

about their opposition. Success does not mean immunity from the frauds AND New York state is getting new improved HAVA approved voting machines.
Schumer is too naive and cocky too about his fair victories here as well.

When the Dem leadership at the very least begins to hire staffers who can deal with fraud then my support will rise above tepid eyebrow raising.

[Seabiscuit]

17. I don't know if the GOP turned green, but Tucker Carson ate a shoe!

Hillary showed up on his show and presented him with a cake baked as a shoe and even cut him a slice so he could eat his shoe as promised once she sold her millionth copy. I saw it live and it was hilarious.

[SoDesuKa]

7. Hillary Voted for the War

I said at the time that I'd never vote for her again, and I don't plan to. She could be running against the Devil himself and I'd vote third party.

[saracat]

8. Wow! I am not a Hillary fan, but I would never throw my vote away.

Think of the Nader voters in 2000.Why would you cut off your nose to spite your face? It isn't as though you can "unvote" the IWAR ! It happened.People were given deliberately bad info.Some voted for it others against it. It happened.We must now deal with it.I was angry too, but I will vote for whomever is the next Dem nominee. I pray it isn't Hillary. I don't want a moderate, but whatever it takes to get ADem and break from the Repukes.I personally don't bekieve a moderate is the answer.

[cascadiance]

9. I think the key thing is not to say that one shouldn't vote for

a moderate...

The fundamental problem is that the Rethugs and the media is that they are redefining who "moderates" and liberals are... Everyone to the left of their extreme RW elements is liberal with a small exception of a few RWer's that don't completely subscribe to all of their crazy agenda who are "moderates" in their eyes.

So if that's how it is defined, you are right, voting for a "moderate" is not the answer. I don't think we need to have someone that wants to have a socialist answer for everything, though a more socialist approach as an answer for many of our problems is precisely a good solution.

We need someone who understands core Democratic and progressive values and doesn't bend them because corporate donors to the DLC want them bent their way. That person *can* be a moderate, just not one owned by corporations. I want someone that listens to both sides of what the *people* want and is a good negotiator, but not one that sacrifices the basic principles of democracy to do so.

We should follow Lackoff's teachings and take care on how "moderate" is being defined before selecting who our candidate is. Instead of focusing on whether they are "moderate" or not, let's make sure that they are for "democratic" values of the people more as a distinguishing factor instead of corporate elite values that have more money to be heard currently. That's what I (and I think most Americans) are for.

Now I do like how Bill Clinton listened to a lot of people. I don't like how he prioritized working with the DLC, and would feel a similar problem with Hillary if she also followed the same formula and gave us more NAFTA's, WTO's, etc. as a result.

[saracat]

10. Sorry ,but I am NOT a fan of Lakoff. I believe if we "reframe" anything

it should be the GOP.And I don't think Bill Clinton helped our cause at all. He was a panderer. It has hurt us down the road. Clinton had a golden opportunity to help society and he wimped out .I would like to see clear lines of delineation not repuke lite and many republicans feel the same.If we stuck to our ideals and didn't compromise ourselves, they might vote for us.Funny, Bush and the Repukes don't compromise and it has worked for them. Many perceived them as standing for something. T. It is time to turn the tables. We must create a different perception of them, not ourselves!hey make us look like political opportunists.

[cascadiance]

12. I'm not really disagreeing with you...

And I don't think you'd disagree with me.

I agree that we need to stick to the core of our principles, and not have them compromised just to "win an argument". You're right that Lackoff doesn't emphasize that enough as he should. That's what separates us from Rethugs, who will lie and cheat and "reframe things their way" just to win, principles be damned.

But we do have to recognized when we are being "framed" in a way, and get out of that box, which I think can be done and still maintain our principles. We just have to emphasize that we are always staying the same in what we believe is right, and that most Americans, when hearing *and* understanding the core of our beliefs, wouldn't see us as extremists in our view, but more mainstream. We just have to make it clear that what we do believe is "mainstream", and point out why in specifics to those that might be apt to be pushed into the right wing corner instead of falling in with what the Rethugs call as "extremists" (us!).

We can't and shouldn't be arguing with Rethugs on their terms. We can't and shouldn't be bargaining away our principles just to get some extra campaign donations. We should bargain to ensure that we get our most important agenda accomplished and as long as we don't sacrifice our moral compass in the process and drive a hard bargain as well. With these Rethugs, since most of them are extremist now, and can't really be bargained with without sacrificing too much. We just need to make sure that people know that we are with them in the majority and that the majority should dictate the terms, not a minority that's manipulated and distorted itself into power.

[IndianaGreen]

11. And so did most Democrats, however, consider this....

The only way we are going to kick the GOP from the reigns of power is by getting more people to vote for the Democratic nominee in 2008 than the Republicans can.

Without diminishing the responsibility for this war that many of our politicians had in hand in, one must allow for redemption. If someone voted for the war, but now wants to side for peace on the basis of Bush's deceptions leading to the war, then we must support that person no matter what.

Does this mean that we must set aside the issues we care about? Absolutely not! What this means is that 2008 is the last chance we will get at rescuing the Republic from the theo-fascist cabal that holds the reigns of power today. If they remain in power, we will be better off leaving this country to the cruel fate it awaits her, and move to another country.

Let's not repeat the same mistake the German Jews made and stick around for too long.

[bpilgrim]

13. that will be key

"If someone voted for the war, but now wants to side for peace on the basis of Bush's deceptions leading to the war..."

as long as they start calling bush on his LIES they will have my support :bounce:

:hi:

peace

[SoDesuKa]

22. Redemption

Hillary's not seeking redemption. She hasn't expressed any remorse for her vote for the war. If she had to do it again, she'd do the same thing. Hillary has never even offered an explanation of what she was thinking at the time.

Well, nuts. I reject strategic voting if it means voting for people who voted for the war. It was not a close call. The war was clearly wrong, and Hillary voted for it.

[Andromeda]

15. Do us all a favor and stay home.

.

[SoDesuKa]

21. I Always Vote

I vote in every election, even the really minor ones. There's no way I'll ever vote for Hillary because she's demonstrated she can't be trusted. It wouldn't have taken much to have voted against the war, but she couldn't bring herself to do even that.

This is how I choose to vote. You are entitled to disagree.

[dad]

24. I'm with you

Hillary sucks. I was completely against the Iraq war, but in the last election there was no anti-war candidate outside of Nader.

[brentspeak]

14. The Republicans would also love to see Hillary run

Instant victory for them.

[Andromeda]

16. You missed the point....

The Republicans really DON'T want Hillary to run. They are scared to death of her and have already started trying to find something on her that they can use against her if she decides to run.

The results so far have been: Hillary 1, Repubs 0

[brentspeak]

18. No, I understand completely

I understand that Hillary as a candidate would win about four states: California, New York, New Jersey, and Massachussets -- and lose the other 46.

[stlsaxman]

19. absolutely correct.

They could put Pickles against Hillary and we'd lose.

Hillary is an ok Senator (she's no Kerry or Boxer)... let her stay there and help draw up articles of impeachment like she did for Watergate.

We are better served that way.

[proReality]

20. Many NYers say they will not vote for her...

I've just returned from a six week stay in portions of upstate NY and was surprised to hear so many democrats and republicans declare their intentions of NOT voting for her--if she runs for the presidency. They want her to remain their senator. Apparently they feel that she is the first in a very long time to really try and do something for upstaters.

That's not a good sign.

[SoDesuKa]

23. She Can't Be Trusted

If you can't rely on her to vote correctly on very big and very clear issues, you can't rely on her at all. The war was as big and clear an issue as we're likely to see in our times, and Hillary got it wrong. To me it's like waffling on things like slavery or child soldiers. There are no circumstances that would have made the war on Iraq anything other than what it was. Hillary can't be trusted.