September 9, 2003
CLINTON/CLARK IN '04:
Senator Clinton Says No to '04, but Playfulness Hints at Yes (JIM DWYER, September 9, 2003, NY Times)
When the guests descended on the Clinton family home in Chappaqua on Sunday evening, most of them had already heard that the answer to the question was, roughly speaking, no, a thousand times no, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton would not make a run for the presidency next year.By the end of the night, "no" was not quite the word ringing in every ear as the guests -- about 150 major campaign donors to the former president or to the senator -- left the gathering. During cocktails in the back yard, one group heard former President Bill Clinton say that the national Democratic Party had "two stars": his wife, the junior senator from New York, and a retired general, Wesley K. Clark, who is said to be considering a run for the presidential nomination.
And during the dinner, according to a dozen people who were at the event, they heard Mrs. Clinton say how important their support would be "for my next campaign, whatever that may be." Later, Mr. Clinton, in discussing the presidential field, said, "We might have another candidate or two jumping into the race."
Bill Clinton's been talking up General Clark big time and it's easy to see why: he would provide the strong reassuring male counterpart to Hillary Clinton as she seeks to become not just our first female president but a wartime commander-in-chief. Posted by Orrin Judd at September 9, 2003 7:00 PM
The only weak link in the thought that Herself is running in 2004 is the certainty that she would galvanize the small number of conservatives who are leery of Bush right now into his strongest supporters. If she does run as the Democratic nominee, there will be no votes going to any libertarian alternative on the right.
Posted by: jim hamlen at September 9, 2003 8:33 PMIt would be a fairly strong ticket -- if Hillary and Clark could pull off on a foreign policy level what her husband was able to do in 1992 domestically -- say one thing to the general electorate, but with a wink and a nod towards the core supporters that you really don't mean what you're saying and it will all be set right after you're in office.
In Bill's case, it was his promise on taxes, which went from a pre-election promise to cut them to a post-election tax hike, with the "harest decision I've ever had to make" speech coming barely 10 days into his term. With Hillary, she and Clark would both have to talk tough about the military committment overseas against terrorism and the funding it would involve. Normally, that would drive the current Dean/Kerry/Kucinich/etc. backers wild and would threaten a possible bolt by the hard line left to the Green Party, but if they believe she's just pandering to the general public and doesn't mean what she says, they'll stick with her and ignore the "necessary" rhetoric.
Posted by: John at September 10, 2003 1:02 AMShe'll run, she'll win and Osama, Saddam and Chirac will throw a big party. Welcome in the United States of Imitated Europe (but without the charming old buildings).
Posted by: Peter at September 10, 2003 3:36 AM"Playfulness"? - is the Times Hillary's gigolo, or does it just feel close because she is from NY?
Posted by: jim hamlen at September 10, 2003 8:46 AMIn the end the country is not yet ready for
a women president and it will never be ready
for a general representing a left-wing anti-American party.
It would be interesting to see the demographic breakdown of Hillary/Wesley voters. I would bet that a lot of women would be comforted by Gen. Clark's presence on the ticket. Don't think many men would, however. I wouldn't vote for Wesley Clark for police chief, much less give him a chance to direct foreign policy.
Posted by: Jason Johnson at September 10, 2003 11:13 AMI bet at the military academy, Clark saw himself
as a "progressive" officer, a "new breed" of
military man who would have looked down on
many of the great generals of our history.
By the way, I heard some excerpt yesterday talking
about how the fact that the administration
ignored "Shinseki's" advice, meant that it didn't
solicit the advice of military men (I think the
comment was from Dean). What a kick in the
face to Franks, Abizaid and others. I think even
military men are entitled to differ in their
opinions.
John is correct. Perhaps the biggest problem the Democrats have is that their base is anti-war, but that position will not carry a national election now. If they nominate Clark and try to talk tough on the war, they lose their base and probably don't convince many moderates anyway. Rock/Democrats/hard place.
Posted by: PapayaSF at September 10, 2003 6:05 PM