November 30, 2004


Will she or won't she? (Paul Bedard, 11/30/04, Washington Whispers, US News)

Hillary, Hillary, Hillary. Is there any other name that creates the political buzz that Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton 's does? Maybe not, but some friends and allies advise against placing bets that the former first lady will be the nation's 44th president. They report that the New York Democrat isn't so sure about a run for the White House. "She's not running," says one supporter. The thinking in the "don't run" campaign is that Clinton is well aware of the partisan feelings she generates. "People love her or they hate her," says an adviser. "There's very little gray area to gain voters in."

If she was going to stay in the Senate she really needed to try for a leadership position. But it makes no sense to stay and be in the permanent minority. What she should do is run for Governor of NY, where she'd have real power. The problem is she has to wait until Rudy Guiliani decides what he's running for and then choose the other.

Posted by Orrin Judd at November 30, 2004 11:43 AM

She hated Little Rock and Albany is Little Rock with snow.

Posted by: Bart at November 30, 2004 11:51 AM

Exactly, Bart. Plus, the ambition is not small enough to be staisfied by Albany.

Posted by: Bruce Cleaver at November 30, 2004 11:59 AM

Hillary will not run for Governor, and she will not run for President.

Posted by: at November 30, 2004 12:12 PM

The ambition is not small enough to be satisfied by anything short of Great Leader/Dear Leader.

Posted by: Ken at November 30, 2004 12:57 PM

Running for governor would enable her to reshape her image before running for President. If she wants to be President, it's a smart move. On the other hand, she can have an easy and pleasant life as the next-generation Ted Kennedy -- permanent Senator from New York, voice of liberalism. How ambitious is she?

Posted by: pj at November 30, 2004 1:17 PM

Getting the governorship and then running for President makes the most sense as senators have a very tough time getting elected president. But how much more time does she have? If she doesn't run in 2008 events/people will probably overtake her and make a 2012 run more problematic.

Posted by: AWW at November 30, 2004 1:24 PM

Given the cult of personality around the missus and the JFK comparisons that all Democratic candidate seem to be imbibed with nowadays, its hard to see her not having the hubris to run in 2008 (add to that the fact that she's looking more and more like Eleanor Clift in front of the TV cameras every day, which is not a botox-fixable problem). So I would think that she would believe she could successfully run for the presidency even while remaining in the Senate, just as JFK did. Her votes on the war on terror, the war in Iraq and the post-war funding show she's laying the groundwork for that possibility.

But Hillary's certainly not stupid and realizes that whatever path she chooses, Rudy's the biggest obsticle to her current air of inevitability as the '08 nominee. I'm not sure what the '06 election filing date is in New York State, but Giuliani could certainly have fun with her by pulling a Cuomo-like Hamlet stunt and not making his preference known until right up to the deadline.

(And as for Albany being Little Rock with more snow and a toll road, Hillary would only see it as a 10-month stopover on the way back to Washington, since she'd be out on the campaign trail by December of '07 at the latest. That's not a big price to pay.)

Posted by: John at November 30, 2004 1:54 PM

I think that Hillary waits for the results of the '06 elections to decide whether to run for the presidency or not. If the GOP wins another victory, chances are that it will have a big enough majority to control Congress for most of the presidential terms of 2009-2013 and 2013-2017. I don't think Hillary is interested in being a Democratic version of Eisenhower or Nixon nor in merely triangulating to stay in power like Bill. She wants to be a FDR, a LBJ or a GWB, setting the agenda and making her ideological camp dominant for a generation. That won't be possible if the GOP keeps a hold on power.

Posted by: Peter at November 30, 2004 3:36 PM

This just came over the transom; apologies if it has been around:

This test only has one question, but it's a very important
one. By giving an honest answer,
you will discover where you stand morally. The test features
an unlikely, completely fictional
situation in which you will have to make a decision.
Remember that your answer needs to
be honest, yet spontaneous.

Please scroll down slowly and give due consideration to each

You are in Florida, Miami to be specific. There is chaos all
around you caused by a hurricane
with severe flooding. This is a flood of biblical
proportions. You are a photojournalist
working for a major newspaper, and you're caught in the
middle of this epic disaster.
The situation is nearly hopeless.

You're trying to shoot career-making photos. There are
houses and people swirling around
you, some disappearing under the water. Nature is unleashing
all of its destructive fury.

Suddenly you see a woman in the water. She is fighting for
her life, trying not to be taken down with the debris. You
move closer . . . somehow the woman looks familiar. You
suddenly realize who it is. It's Hillary Clinton!

At the same time you notice that the raging waters are about
to take her under . . . forever. You have two options--you
can save the life of Hillary Clinton, or you can shoot a
dramatic Pulitzer Prize winning photo, documenting the death
of one of the world's most powerful women.

So here's the question, and please give an honest answer :

Would you select high contrast color film, or would you go

with the classic simplicity of black and white?

Posted by: curt at November 30, 2004 11:46 PM