November 16, 2003
A QUADRENNIAL FANTASY (via Tom Morin):
2004: Wishful Thinking?: The latest Hillary-for-president scenario (Howard Fineman, 11/24/03, NEWSWEEK)
Is there a chance she would get into the race? “That depends on what you mean by ‘get into the race’,” one of her closest friends and advisers explained to NEWSWEEK.THE SCENARIO, as sketched by this hard-boiled insider, calls for Clinton to make an entrance as healer and unifier at the end of the primary season in May or June in the unlikely—but not impossible—event that none of the existing contenders has amassed a majority of the convention delegates. “You’d have to have Howard Dean not wrapping it up, and being an angry, wounded front runner,” this adviser said. “You’d have to have two of the other challengers tearing each other apart in primary after primary. Then Hillary could come in, well in advance of the convention, and say, ‘Look, somebody has to save the party’.”
In every cpresidential campaign there comes a moment when we can discern who the likely nominees are and they are both always and inevitably disappointing to nearly all of us. So we start to spin out ridiculous scenarios of dead-locked conventions and the like, but they never come true. The only unusual thing is that they've started even before the first vote is cast this time.
Meanwhile, the entire point of Hilary staying out of the race this Fall was so that she could see how the economy and Iraq were doing. Obviously the economy is going to work in President Bush's favor next year and with a handover of authority in Iraq on track for sometime near Memorial Day, not only is the war unlikely to be an issue, nbut late-May/early-June looks to be the least opportune moment for a new candidate to enter the race.
The Democrats, sadly for them, look like they are down to Dean or Gephardt, unless someone else jumps in by Christmas.
I don't think Dean can win against Bush. Why? Becasue he is from liberal Vermont where Dean essentially rode the wave of gay marriages. It also produces one representative who is an avowed socialist, one senator who is a turncoat and one senator who is a liberal poster-child obstructionist. This will not win the South for the Democrats and thus will sink them in a presidential race.
Look at Democratic presidents in the last 4O years. LBJ, a southern Democrat. Jimmy Carter, a southern Democrat. Bill Clinton, a southern Democrat. Look at the guy who ran in 2000 and lost by only a few hundred votes, a southern Democrat. Compare that with the Democrats who lost big against Republicans. Walter Mondale, a liberal guy from Minnesota. Mike Dukakis, a liberal guy from Massachusetts. George McGovern, a liberal guy from South Dakota.
Now Jimmy Carter lost to Reagan because he was a crappy president and Reagan was Reagan.
In any event, if the Democrats write off the south then they are toast. What would really hurt Bush is if a Democratic southern governor ran in 2004 against Bush. This governor would have to have supported the war with Iraq. Currently, there is nobody around who fits that bill. Senator Bob Graham could have done that if he didn't turn into such a fruitcake. I understand he has been against the war but that is why he turned into a fruitcake and had todrop out. He was a two term governor of Florida and he appealed to white voters. He would have been a tough candidate if he didn't implode.
Actually, Zell Miller would really give Bush a run for his money. He used to be governor of Georgia. He is moderate enough to go toe-to-toe with Bush and he is a Democrat so he will get 95% of the black vote and huge majorities of other special interest groups that make up the Democratic party's coalition. One thing that could upset this is a third party run by a Ralph Nader or an independent Howard Dean.
I just don't think a liberal New England rich boy like Dean is going to unseat Bush.
Miller simply wouldn't be able to get on with the Democrat's liberal base like Clinton did.
Posted by: M Ali Choudhury at November 16, 2003 6:50 PMDrugs do terrible things to your mind. The way the process is front loaded now, the trailing candidates loose all of their support by April and are flushed out of the system.
I have no idea who is going to win this race, but he will not be anybody who is not in the race now with an effective organization.
The Clintonites at national headquarters need to start working on their resumes and packing their bags. where Deanno gets the nod he going to clean house. Adios, mcaullife.
Posted by: Robert Schwartz at November 16, 2003 8:00 PMHillary probably hit her high point last night. Once she enters the race, whether tomorrow or in May, there will be an onslaught of questions she will not want to answer. But she will have to say something. And she knows it. Plus, she will have to sideline Bill first, lest he hog the stage. I don't see that happening.
The media gets the vapors over the possiblity of her jumping in, but someone who is more divisive than Howard Dean is not a dream candidate. If her vote-draw is 44%-45% max, why bother running at all? Her husband won with less than 50%, but she will not - not now and not in 2008.
Posted by: jim hamlen at November 16, 2003 8:58 PMWhat's funny is that if Hillary doesn't run and the Democrats lose, they for all intents and purposes might as well hold their 2008 convention about Nov. 8, 2004, nominate her and be done with it. She can pick her VP four years later at some Emily's List event covered by C-SPAN after they decide what part of the country/racial demographic they think will play best in the general election.
With the party seeming to have no recriminations about the Clinton years (except for a few minor grumblings from Dean) anyone challenging Hillary in 2008 apparently will be viewed as something of a heretic by the party faithful, who've worked themselves into near rapture just at the thought that shw might save the Democrats in 2004.
Posted by: John at November 17, 2003 12:04 AMIt doesn't appear that any Democrat will develop a severe case of patriotism in the forseeable future.
Posted by: John J. Coupal at November 17, 2003 12:23 AMjim:
Maybe in '08. With no incumbent... Who knows what issues might arise in the next five years ?
Bush may very well have no Reaganesque stature to help him boost his replacement choice.
Michael:
But any Republican starts out with the 30 Red states.
Posted by: oj at November 18, 2003 8:02 AMoj:
Almost none of the states couldn't be won by either major party, under the right circumstances.
No incumbent is as favorable a situation as Hill will likely see.
Posted by: Michael Herdegen at November 19, 2003 8:13 AMMichael:
No Democrat has won in a landslide (other than post-assassination LBJ) since FDR. Republicans win them routinely.
Posted by: OJ at November 19, 2003 10:55 AM