Oh, Drat. Bob Scheiffer said Hillary might run

(Almost said Oh, -- nevermind.) Said he's heard that Bill has been telling people close to him that if someone doesn't break out of the pack, Hillary might run.

DRAT, DRAT, DRAT.

Here's something I've posted several times on the subject:

Clark has been put in the race specifically to stop Dean, by other Democrats. And it's NOT because Dean is unelectable - it's precisely because he IS electable AND the movement that has formed around him, which is intent on "taking back our country" from ALL the special interests and putting it in the hands, for the first time in a very long while, of THe People.

He's raising his money from small donors -- people like you and me. He's running a grassroots, Open Source iterative Presidential Campaign in which he and his campaign listen carefully, respond and adopt the ideas of his supporters -- people like you and me. He's not bought, he's not handled, he's free and able to respond to The People. He is revitalizing the democratic process itself, and it's very scary for some who do not want to let go of THEIR power (which isn't The People's Power).

So he has become unbelievably dangerous for those who do NOT want to let go of their power and influence -- the DNC, the DLC, and people like the Clintons.

I should've paid attention when Bill Clinton said a few weeks ago that "there are two stars in the Democratic Party -- Hillary Clinton and Wesley Clark." I should've listend when Hillary gave a glowing review of Clark to a reporter, but said, "but this isn't an endorsement, I can't endorse anyone." I should've paid attention when Howard Fineman wrote a column about the Stop Dean effort in the party. But when Clark finally announced and then shortly thereafter I heard him spouting some DLC talking points, and THEN it was revealed that not only was Clinton "encouraging him to run," but a bunch of ex-Clinton aides and campaign workers had joined his campaign, I got it.

Watch too for Hillary to enter the race. Watch too for Hillary to enter the race -- and yeah, I realize the Rightwing has said that, but the Leftwing hasn't denounced it. There have been a lot of hints. An article someone wrote some time back about how the Clintons have been busy, busy fundraising and "building things." Some coy remarks by Bill about Hillary and it's her decision. Remember too a recent remark that he thought the people of New York would "forgive her" if she didn't keep her promise to serve out her Senate term. I hope it doesn't happen, but it's not imposible.

Bill Clinton does NOT have the right to pick our nominee for us, especially when he's thwarting the will of the people to do so. I have been increasingly "over" the Clintons (and Bill IS the only Republican I ever voted for), but this little move clinches it for me. He is NOT a friend of democracy, AFIAC, or The People. And he needs to get the heck out of this primary race. Period.

=========

Eloriel

because she voted for the war.

And I don't mean the right wing, who WANT her to run. I mean Dems like me. If she declares candidacy now she will "prove" to the wingnuts that she's just a power-hungry harridan. And, frankly, I don't see anything she brings to the table now. We've got enough good candidates already to choose from.

I think there are a lot of Dem pols and wonks who think the candidate field is particularly weak. Now, is that true? Well, we won't know until November 2004, right? Do you guys want to take that chance?

everything before.

Even tho I will never forgive some of the candidates for certain things (unless they apologize, that is), the LAST thing I think we've got is a "weak" candidate field.

And, I don't think those pols and wonks offer anything substantive to back up their claims, do you? In fact, I can't recall I've heard ANYthing to back up those claims.

Eloriel

I don't know if they have anything specifically to back it up. Could just be a good analysis of the siituation.

I say good luck to the Democrats. I personally think that they're in big trouble.

Just curious.

I was, but I'm not a Democrat.

that you are still a Democrat....just not of the DLC type.

The field is weak? -- that's exactly what was said of the "field" in 1992, which included Bill Clinton. Tell me another one.

Bottom line, the perceived the "weakness" of the "field" results from the fact that the original presumptive front-runners -- Kerry, Gephardt, Edwards, and Lieberman -- all voted for the Iraq War resolution. This has caused a revolt from the base that, I believe, took the DNC and the DLC by surprise and opened the door for "outsiders" like Dean. That's why some of the "pundits" are calling the field weak. The "pundits" expected one of these four Senators to have put it away by now.

But HILLARY VOTED FOR THE DADBLAMED RESOLUTION TOO! What would Hillary add to the field that trumps Kerry, Gephardt, Edwards, or Lieberman? Nada. And just becaues she's a Clinton will make her a disaster in the general election.

You want to re-elect Bush? Run Hillary as his Dem opponent.
If she enters the race it will fire up the wingnuts and take attention away from Iraq and the economy and put it back on Bill's Mighty Member. Unfair or not, that's the last thing we need now.

FAR from that...

Bill and Hillary endorsed Clark, didn't they?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

where exactly are you coming from?

I don't think a former President is denied from running for VP. Does anyone know? After "Colliefornia" I think everything is Open.

And, if that's the case then Gore should throw his hat in the ring again. Why Not? Maybe Martin Sheen should run, also. After all, many Americans probably believe he's already President. (the TV show really is the President and the other one is just a put up job) :crazy: :eyes: :crazy:

I'll do a little research and get back to this thread on this very situation. :toast:

it matches theories put out by republicans, like William Safire for example, about Clinton deliberately messing with the primaries to help Hillary, even sabotaging the dems in 2004 so that Hillary can run in 2008.

On Meet the Press, Ron Brownstein ridiculed Safire's theory, and Safire practically admitted the whole thing was just B.S., he didn't really believe a word of it, he's just playing with our heads.

that's the set up. Clark got in to preserve the 2008 spot for Hillary and she will be his VP. Then Clark will not run for re-election.

Here's the article about the Clintons "building things:"

This article can be found on the web at
http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20030217&s=greider

Still Clinton's Show?

by WILLIAM GREIDER



Indeed, he already is. In the vacuum before the party's nominee is chosen next year, Clinton's footprints are all around--coaching presidential wannabes, offering broad policy prescriptions and encouraging his former White House lieutenants to do the same. Some of them are trying to create new campaign vehicles that will help the minority party get out the anti-Bush message and, not coincidentally, defend the Clinton orthodoxy. "Bill is desperate to establish himself as the strategy guy for the Democratic Party, the guy who shapes the message," said one hostile Democrat. The message, as Clinton reassured loyal fans at the Democratic Leadership Council, is: "We don't have to be more liberal, but we do have to be more relevant in a progressive way."

A darker scenario was suggested by a Democratic lobbyist who described "Team Clinton" scurrying around Washington, setting up independent money pots and "issue" fronts to pre-empt other voices and to define the broad agenda for 2004 in Clinton's New Democrat terms. The ultimate objective, in this scenario, is to prepare the ground for Senator Hillary Clinton's eventual run for the presidency (when Mr. Bill might return to the White House as First Spouse). This insider chatter sounds melodramatic and way ahead of the story, but it's not exactly paranoid fantasy. The Clinton circle is busy building things.

I personally would not vote for her at this late stage of the game.

Sorry, but those are my own opinions. The Clintons are desperate to keep Howard Dean from winning to preserve a spot for Hillary and Bill as First Spouse. I'm convinced that is the plan and the goal.

Are you saying that Mr. Greider's story is a Rove plant? Did you read the article? I would recommend you read it all the way through. He makes a great deal of sense and backs it up with facts.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

A very good column by Charley Reese:
http://reese.king-online.com/Reese_20031008/index.php

The general is just an insurance policy for the Establishment. Yes, Virginia, there is an Establishment, and the game it has played all of my life is to make sure that both the Democratic nominee and the Republican nominee were controllable by the Establishment. What the Establishment fears most is an independent outsider.

The Establishment isn't concerned with conservatives or liberals, with the left or with the right. These are all just red herrings to keep the populace distracted. Politics in our country is about money and power. End of story. Look at recent history. The Establishment came down with all its power on Barry Goldwater, an independent thinker of the right, and on George McGovern, an independent thinker of the left. What the Establishment feared about both men was that it wouldn't be able to manipulate and control them.

The Establishment is scared to death of Howard Dean. The more progress he makes, the more you will see the Establishment press and think tanks attack him. The Establishment wants a choice between Wesley Clark and George Bush that would in effect be between tweedledee and tweedledum. Clark isn't even sure if he's a Democrat, much less what he believes, if anything. He just wants to be emperor. And the Establishment got him into the race simply because it was afraid Dean would beat Dick Gephardt, John Kerry, Bob Graham and John Edwards.

You'll get a troll alert for daring to print the facts. :evilgrin:

This "stalking horse" theory emerged out of the right wing press in mid-September. I found a cluster of wingnut articles about it that were published September 16-20, so either somebody planted the idea or several people spontaneously came up with the same theory at once. Then Bill Safire came out with the stalking horse September 22 in the NY Times, but he has since admitted it was bs.

You are about three weeks behind the curve, in other words.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F60B16F9355E0C718EDDA00894DB404482

http://www.mahablog.com/2003.09.21_arch.html#1064170592594

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

and I h ave alerted on you!

Look at the entire thread. Anyone who dares to question the Clark candidacy is treated with equal personal attacks by "maha."

I've read three of his books; there is no way he is a Rove plant.

from one of his books, but quickly figured out it was useless with this specific poster.

He has some wonderful books out there which speak frankly and painfully about things some Democrats are unwilling to admit. Sigh...

I don't think it's late. Heck, I'm still undecided. The primaries haven't even started yet.

Hillary Clinton is not running for president and I think most Democrats would be happy with any Democratic win of the presidency. We must get the little wimp out of the White House. Slamming the Clinton's is not the way to do it - the right wing keeps putting out Hillary is running to help Repukes raise money. Dean is a good candidate, so is Clark, Kerry and all the rest - can't support Lieberman - don't know what I would do if he got it - but bush must go.

"the right wing keeps putting out Hillary is running to help Repukes raise money"

Exactly. A Hillary candidacy is the Republican's favorite wet dream. I can't believe Democrats fall for it.

That idiot's been telling anyone who'll listen that if Dubya's numbers drop below a certain threshold, Hillary's in.

When did Dickhead Morris last work for Bill Clinton? 1996, I believe maybe 97. How the hell does he know what they're doing 6 years later??

He despises the Clintons. I am going to apply my Mother's rule to this enduendo: Never believe anything you hear, and only one half of what you see. Those right wing fanatics will make up anything on anyone at anytime, if they think it will help Bush stay in office. :puke: :crazy: :freak:

didn't seem to be an issue with candidates anymore. That was Bill Schneider, Gergen, and whoever after the Dem debae on CNN the other night.

So, I think they were telling us something. Why not Gore running again with Bill as VP! Why not ........oh well......whatever.....you can see that the combinations are endless. :-(

"It's OK if you're a Republican."

at this late date would be negative by the various supporters of the other nine who would view her as a spoiler, and of course the GOP would go nuts (but they are always motivated to vote - I do not believe she would generate more GOP base votes).

I do not see how she jumps in - but the best of luck to her if she does - and my vote would move from Kerry to Hillary with no problem.

Clinton to attend Democrat benefit in Iowa

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton has agreed to serve as master of ceremonies of the Iowa Democratic Party's annual fall fund-raiser next month, a move Democrats say puts to rest speculation that she is considering her own White House bid next year.

"This is the ultimate statement she is not running," Iowa Democratic Party Chairman Gordon Fischer said Saturday. "Frankly, we wouldn't have her emcee if there were even a possibility she would become a candidate. That would be giving her a higher chair than the other candidates, which would be unfair."

http://www.dmregister.com/news/stories/c4789004/22423619.html

At all.

I'm sure she "has no plans" to run right now. But "things could change," you know?

Eloriel

Hillary would be cutting her own throat if she runs now, and she knows it. She'll never get the pubs and most independents, and the dem base would turn on her.

This is what really was said. Scheiffer said a friend of his told him that he heard that Bill Clinton said if there is no break out candidate, that Hillary might consider a run. Then he chuckled and asked the two news-type guys what they thought. They both said it was not going to happen.

I think Schieffer just threw that out there to promote a discussion because Bill and Hillary are interesting.

As for the second part of your post, I've seen it so many times, that my eyes glaze over. However, I will say this....so what if the establishment wants to stop Dean? They think he's a loser, so they want to run someone who they think might actually beat Bush. It's perfectly within their right to do so, if fact it's their job.

so you believe it's the corporatist republican-lite DEMS job to remove anyone who disagrees with their agenda.

No wonder this party is in trouble.

Amen sister!

I think it is just fine to be opposed to Dean. The party could be in trouble, that's for sure.

--------

Here's a Tom Oliphant opinion piece:

This is the last part--


The point is that Clark is testing the other candidates, and they are responding poorly.

Dean started it last week, complaining that he urged a New Hampshire congressional candidate (Katrina Swett, now a Lieberman backer) to support last year's congressional resolution. Kerry cited his alleged apostasy at the GOP fund-raiser, and Lieberman complained about the supposed sin of ambivalence. Of the major candidates, only John Edwards had the sense to steer clear of direct attacks on the new guy. Dick Gephardt, meanwhile, continues to direct his fire and ire at Dean.

All of this is faintly reminiscent of a Democratic sin from the Vietnam era. Americans eventually came to oppose escalation of the war, but Democrats constantly attacked each other based on how "late" they came to oppose the conflict. It was a narrow, sectarian squabble that many Americans found to be a metaphor for a narrow, sectarian party.

It is possible that Americans, like Californians last week, may want change next year. They are certain to be repelled, however, if Democrats embrace change but reject people who have themselves changed.

Change, Democrats should remember, is about the future. Partisan purity is about the past.



http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2003/10/12/democratic_hopefuls_misread_california/

I also find it interesting that you apparently discount more direct testimony (what Scheiffer said) in favor of mere speculation by the others.

People go to such lengths to not have to face what they'd rather not face.

Oh, and about your complaints about my posts -- put me on ignore. Solve all your problems. I'd welcome it.

Eloriel

And what Scheiffer said was a friend of a friend story, that's hardly direct.

I usually do try to ignore you.

The Ignore function is one click away. Use it!

Eloriel

They want the Dems to win on DLC terms or not at all.

The whole thing about Hillary running in 2004 is media hype to get everyone's panties in a bunch. I think you are giving the Clintons too much power in your scenario.

I'm not trying to attack you, but I can't understand your logic.

Do you not agree that the Clintons are the most powerful Democrats in the United States?

That it's not the Clintons who have placed Terry McAuliffe and Al From in the power positions there are in at the DNC and DLC?

That it's not the Clintons who control the Democratic party from their position on high?

I believe you are sadly mistaken if you don't believe that it is the Clintons who are running and controlling the Democratic party today. And I do believe the "candidate struggle" we are seeing is a desperate attempt by the Clintons to retain their power.

After the attacks on Howard Dean by the DLC/DNC, how can you possibly say that the Wesley Clark candidacy is NOT an attempt to stop the forward momentum Dean has?

It's really simple - if Howard Dean wins the nomination, the Clinton hold on the Democratic party is finished. The attacks on him by the DLC/DNC mean he will replace every one of them. You don't think they KNOW this and will do everything possible to prevent it?

what a waste of time discussing this extremely unlikely event.

If Hillary Clinton won the Democratic nomination and was then elected president, would that, in your opinion, be a bad thing?

We have much better candidates -- people who would be better for this country. I'm obviously no Hillary fan. Never have been, quit trying to find something redeeming about her to "appreciate," other than she has won respect for her hard work "on both sides of the aisle." In this climate, I'm not even sure that's something to admire.

Eloriel

that in a race between Hillary Clinton and G.W. Bush, you would support Bush - since that's, in effect, what you just said. But, I'm pretty sure that's not what you meant to say...

I'm not a big fan of Hillary's either. I find her too willing to compromise, too conservative, too ready to work "both sides of the aisle".

These are the same objections I have to Howard Dean, especially when I look at his record as governor of Vermont. In fact, I see Dr. Dean
as something of an opportunist - a candidate willing to portray himself as something he's not, in order to capitalize on the huge Democratic anger growing out of the Iraq debacle.

These past several months I have been trying to understand his support, especially among the more liberal members on this board.

I guess I just don't get it.

Hillary will only run if there is no breakout candidate, but her reason for running would be to spoil Howard Dean's candidacy.

Yep, those Deanies. Like leader, like followers.

Eloriel is absolutely correct in her analysis about the Clinton's running the Democratic party. No question about it.

OKNancy, Oklahoma may have a good football team, but I've never been too excited by even their Democratic politics and I'm afraid you are no exception. At the end of your post above, you said (or it was part of the quote - I wasn't sure):

"Partisan purity is about the past."

This is a Clark theme for sure....and, you are a Clark supporter. I don't call it "partisan purity" as much as I call it, "Standing For Something."

Eloriel is just standing for traditional DEMOCRATIC principles and speaking the truth. Of course, apparently, that's not popular these days.

standing for 'Democratic principles?'

If Clark wasn't showing such strength in the polls, Dean supporters wouldn't be fussing so.

Now on to real life. It's a beautiful day here in Oklahoma. The sky is turquoise, the leaves are starting to turn, my flowers are glorious, and my husband is looking especially handsome today.

None of us is afraid of Wesley Clark. Like him personally, his candidacy is a flash in the pan and served only to force Bob Graham out of the race.

Wesley Clark is nothing more than the corporatist DLC/DNC/Clinton machine's attempt to retain power.

What they didn't get in California and what they don't get NOW is that this country is looking for a real LEADER. Someone with fresh ideas, fresh plans, fresh outlooks. That is NOT Wesley Clark and that becomes more abundantly clear every time he opens his mouth. Wesley Clark is nothing more than stale, warmed over Clinton policies.

~

Disagree with Clark people and we must be young, immature people who haven't seen the light!

I see it every day at DU.

in the Federal Elections Commissions site shes listed as a presidential candidate. covering her bases?

http://wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,21559,00.html

:-)

shaping up to be filled with so much paranoia?

In fact, since you have no idea who I support (if anyone at this juncture) for the democratic nomination, then thats a pretty unfounded statement.

It seems to me that many (not all or most) Dean supporters are a bit paranoid about their candidate losing the democratic nomination, in fact to me it seems they are more concerned with winning the nomination, than a democrat winning the presidency back.

so that can't be the motive. Vets and military around the country hate him and he will be crushed in the South. Dean has a path to the nomination, but no path whatsoever to win the election. Wish it weren't so, but it is.