MSNBC's Craig Crawford adds credibility to Hillary '04 Story !

Hot on the story by Richard Reeves, comes MSNBC's Craig Crawford saying some interesting things:
Sludge has it top...
www.drudgereport.com

edit for url

...is that no one is stating the obvious. Hillary may want to jump in or at least act like it because she doesn't want to wait until 2012 to run. If someone were elected, and then re-elected, she'd be out of the loop till 2012. Not to mention that some campaigns are playing havoc with the way that the "New Democrats" get their funding...

for making me click on that link. Now I have to cleanse that infected site from my history folder.

But Richard Reeves has been a political insider for MANY years. I have three of his books on my book shelf. Now with this story from Craig Crawford - I am wondering. Reeves is right, things have changed since Hillary said she wouldn't run. It's clear that if a Democrat is elected - she has to wait. She also knows that if Bush is vulnerable - why not her??? Keep in mind the Democratic polls, when Hillary's in the mix - all the others drop to single digits.

Plus, everyone knows it would be a Clinton/Clinton White house again, except this time, the "first gentleman" would be the most influential presidential spouse in history. People remember the eight years of prosperity fondly - like Hillary (or Bill) or not.

After all those promises she made, if she decides to run she'll have a problem. Even if she is thinking about it I still believe she'll decide against it.

But Sam Donaldson and others have always said that if Bush looks very vulnerable, she would jump in....

I don't think she could win because their are so many "Playah Hatahs" out there.

If you read his article, you would think that Kerry and Lieberman are the front runners for the nomination.

Hillary would present a real problem for me, I absolutely love her! Yeah, I'm not happy with her war vote but she was the FIRST Democratic bigshot to call into focus the right-wing conspiracy.

The biggest problem that I have with her is the same that I have for any of the candidates that are currently in Congress...Congresspersons do not upset incumbents for President. They've had to do too much compromising to appear as a significant change from the status quo.

I may change my opinion if she does get in but for now I think that Dean or Clark represent our best chance at the White House.

This is so weird. I still can't believe she'd run, for many reasons.

The Right would be so fired up over it. They still live for Clinton-bashing.

And unfortunately, I don't think the majority of people in this country are ready for a woman president, especially in a time of "war".

I don't think I can handle the way the RW will go after her. She might be able to weather it, but I won't! :)

Polarizing - that's for sure.

But, it would be an angry 50/50 polarizing. Many people are ANYBODY but Bush and Hillary would destroy him in any debate. She would constantly remind him of the 8 years of prosperity under her husband.

I think she'll decide against it - but if her people are contacting the other campaigns (as Crawford is reporting) they must be extremely depressed this Labor Day weekend.

The Democratic party has a number of good candidates now. Hillary promised the voters in NY that she'd finish out her senate term. I hope very much that she doesn't run. If she does it will be out of sheer ego. My prediction for the likely result: she'll get destroyed in the primaries (there's just no way Kerry and Dean will take a dive for her). But the Democratic party will be damaged by this. It's not the conservatives you have to worry about but the moderates and independents who will get this impression that Democrats can't run their own party. Unfortunately it wouldn't surprise me if her ego won.

All the polls I've seen have Hillary beating the 9 candidates soundly if she enters the race. After NH and Iowa, the primaries shift south to Virginia and South Carolina with huge black populations. Everyone knows how popular the Clinton's were with African Americans.

If Hillary is in it, she wins the nomination.

Dean and Kerry and, really, all of the other candidates, would have no choice but to use her as a punching bag. If Gore had run they would have done the same thing. I don't think any of the candidates who are running now would take a dive. They've invested a year of their lives and they have their supporters.

Hillary has three huge negatives: 1) she's a very polarizing figure and many voters just don't like her (she has the highest negatives of any potential candidate, they're higher than Al Sharpton's); 2) the best way for other candidates to bump them up would be to bring up the the Lewinsky crap and other scandals (which they would do, the Democrats don't need this); 3) she promised voters in NY that she would serve a full term, she has the strange and unique advantage of being married to the previous president (and can pull the strings of the highest echelons of the party), and she'd be jumping in, let's face it, because Bush, during the last month, now looks as though he might be vulnerable...all of which smacks of opportunism, I think that's how the public would see this.

She has name recognition. Your comments about the black vote are interesting. What this would turn into, though, is a mean fight between Kerry, Dean, and Clinton, it's possible no one would have a majority going into the convention, and however this turned out there would be a lot of bad blood (eg. if Clinton won Dean and Kerry supporters would regard her, and I think correctly, as a spoiler).

And then this candidate (whoever it is) would go up against Bush in the general election? Right now if the race turns into a competition between Dean and Kerry (and you can even toss in Clark) I think whoever wins would be able to unify the party. I just don't see this happening if the front runner doesn't have a clear majority.

If Clinton wanted to run in 2004 she should have announced her intentions last spring. I think she would have been a long shot back then. Under current circumstances I think this would be destructive.

But hey, it's a free country.

Hillary is HUGELY popular among african americans because of her husband. If they turn out big for her and if women turn out big for her, it can offset a lot of the right wing nuts who will rally against her in the southern states with huge black populations. Remember that the only reason Florida and many other states were as close as they were in '00 was because of a record African American voter registration drive and turnout. Otherwise, Bush would have won it clearly.

Dean has nowhere near that kind of support with african americans.

I know plenty of liberal females who feel very uneasy about Hillary and some have even said that "(they) don't like her and would not vote for her as President."

Frankly, if Hillary runs it will just be another 2000 election debacle because the electorate is pretty much 50/50 Repuke vs. Intelligent.

DEAN is the way to go. If he can bring on Clark or Graham as V.P., then he's got an easier chance at the Presidency than Hillary could ever hope for.

JB

take my chances 50/50 that have a 60/40 blowout with Dean as our new McGovern.

I think Hillary's base of support is single women and this has some potential to cross parties (so long as you don't read too much into this, she'd get some independents on her side, conservatives, of course, hate her). The problem is that single women vote Democratic anyway. As for other voters her biggest problem, I think, is that they'd perceive her to be a spoiler who used her connections to ruin the other campaigns. Dean, Kerry, and others, have been running for the past year. This problem wouldn't exist if she hadn't been First Lady (eg. Dianne Feinstein could join the race now) but a lot of Democrats will be pissed off if she runs (even if she wins, people have invested a lot in these other candidates, how could she beat the perception that she rigged the race?).

If she wants to be president her best bet is to support whomever wins the nomination in 2004 and, if that person loses, be ready to run in 2008. If said candidate wins, of course, she's out of luck (and that probably would end her chances of being president). But guess what? That's life sometimes. I think this "spoiler" problem, though, is so great she shouldn't even think about 2004 (because whether she perceives it or not moderates will conclude that she's running for opportunistic reasons, and this is on top of the reputation which she already has, the Democrats don't need this baggage right now).

eom

...that now, since Dean has surged to the front of the pack, Hillary has a better sense of which way the party is leaning in the early going....She's already "raised the flag" a few times since her book came out and the response has been clearly in her favor, according to every poll I've seen....She knows that a potential candidacy this year carries significant weight.

Personally, I believe that she'd serve the PARTY best by holding her senate seat because:

1) She's already become a real force in NYC and breaking her commitment now will only enhance the perception that she never had her heart in the job to begin with....She needs to make her "bones" first....She MUST fulfill her obligations because the resentment she'll get from the city if she walks away will be deep enough to undercut any progress that she's made.

2) The baggage is real problem...Wether deserved or not, I can't think of anyone in the party who can light a fire under the right's ass like this woman....She'll make it just that much HARDER to fight Bush in November and we need all the help we can GET this time around....Much too volatile a candidate....We need a new face.

3) This party needs to break clear of as much DLC influence as possible....Now is the time!...I saw Hillary paling around with Holy Joe the other day over that EPA story on air quality in NYC and it gave me the CREEPS.
...The idea that she'd be seen together with the guy who did his best to trample Big Dog during "Cockgate" is beyond me.

I'm of the opinion that the Clintons can do the party the most good by taking their place on the sidelines and rooting for the TEAM....I'll always be grateful for what they've managed to acheive under the incredible pressure and sand-bagging tactics of the right, but it's time for NEW BLOOD.

Hillary isn't running. MSNBC and all the usual suspects talk about it endlessly because it is red meat to their audience, who crave the pure rush of hate only the mention of a Clinton can bring.

Take this to the Freeper board where it belongs.

Two sources are now saying Hillary is reconsidering.

Next time there are political rumblings, should we check with YOU before posting or "taking it to the Freeper board?"

Get real. MSNBC has plenty of news now without this. Richard Reeves is no MSNBC shill - that's FOR SURE.

look over here, see Hillary might run. Stop all letters to editors all activism and calls to your representatives on any thing that matters. Rove is giving us some Hillary. Yay, what fun.

He pulls all strings and is behind the curtain. ONE DAY Toto will prove that EVERYTHING that happens is because of....God....Karl Rove.

Hillary makes a surprise announcement to run for president in a few weeks? It'll be a bigger shocker than Arnold. She'll get tons and tons and tons of free media coverage and suck out the oxygen from everyone. Pretty wild to think about.

Would give them a lot of breathing room.

With all that media coverage, Hillary could just keep bashing and smashing Bush and company. No other candidate would get that bully pulpit.

I agree.....the focus would be on WHY is Hillary running? Her answers would be indictments against who??? George W. Bush and Company. It wouldn't be a free ride for Bush. If anything, she would focus the issues more squarely on Bush in comparing them to the 8 years of prosperity under Clinton/Gore.

who in the heck would hillary pick as vp?


i still can't help but think that bill is contriving something masterful...

that would be splendid.