Regards, Ivan
Posted on 05/10/2003 3:55:31 PM PDT by MadIvan
Cue the music from Jaws, or Fatal Attraction. Just when you thought the Democratic party was flailing around in its attempt to gain any political traction, a familiar and fascinating figure is haunting the sidelines. In a sign of how pitiful the Democratic talent pool seems these days, that figure is one Hillary Rodham Clinton. No, she is not running for president next year. But the former first lady has been showing signs of ramping up her steely political ambitions.
Republicans are alternately salivating at the prospect and dreading it. Hillary mobilises the Republican base more effectively than an evangelical rally on an aircraft carrier. But she is also a canny politician, like her husband. And there is the slight chance that she could prevail.
Remember the rumours that floated around when she was deciding whether to run for the Senate? I for one thought she wouldn’t.
But she did. And she ran a pretty flawless campaign, even winning over the more conservative constituents in upper New York state, a place as culturally distant from lower Manhattan as the hinterlands of Pennsylvania.
She grew up a Republican, after all, just like Tony Blair grew up in Toryland. And her most recent positioning has come about because of the war against Saddam. As Fred Barnes, a conservative reporter, wrote: “A week after the start of the war in Iraq Donald Rumsfeld gave a briefing to the Senate armed services committee. At the time the advance of American troops towards Baghdad supposedly was bogged down — it turned out they really weren’t — and the Bush administration was facing stiff criticism. But the defence secretary got strong support from an unexpected source, the newest member of the committee, Democratic senator Hillary Clinton of New York. Alluding to her own experience in an administration under fire, she indicated she understood Rumsfeld’s situation. Then Clinton assured him the committee was behind him 100% and would provide anything he needed. The key is to win the war, she said. The war effort should not be shortchanged in any way.”
Surprised? Don’t be. Hillary’s pro-war position has a long pedigree. As far back as last September she strongly backed President Bush’s campaign to unseat Saddam. She was asked on a television programme if disarmament in Iraq was possible without removing Saddam. She replied: “I doubt it.” Bush’s policy “is exactly what should be done”.
Regardless of the United Nations, she believed Bush “has to do what he believes is in the best interest of the country”. I wonder how many Guardian readers are aware of where their icon stood on this matter.
As politics it is a perfect pitch. The Clintons have always been chameleons and, although profoundly uncomfortable with the military, have never underestimated its importance in American life. Two weeks ago Bill Clinton voiced strong support for Rumsfeld’s plans for transforming the military into a more high-tech and nimble force. And the military that prevailed in Iraq so swiftly and decisively was, in many respects, Clinton’s army. Reforms in military life, acquisitions and strategy take years to implement, and much of the weaponry and structure of the current force was bought, deployed and planned for under the previous administration.
Similarly, the official policy of “regime change” in Iraq was innovated by Bill Clinton rather than George W Bush. When the Democrats realise they need to co-opt the successes in the war on terror, rather than whine about them, watch out for this point to be made again and again. And who better to make it than Hillary? The polls reflect some of this advantage as well. In almost every one that measures the relative popularity of the Democratic candidates for president, Hillary comes out on top — even though she isn’t running. A poll in February put Hillary at 46%, compared with Joe Lieberman, her nearest rival, at 15%. She has a book coming out soon too — one that will give her a national tour just as the presidential campaign season heats up. And her political game — insulate herself with some conservative positions, while firing up the Democratic base — is classic Bill.
Will she run next year if all the other candidates come up empty? Almost certainly not; she just got elected as senator. Leaving so soon to run for president would revive every carpet-bagging criticism she has rebutted in the past two years with diligent constituency work. Besides, her focus is clearly on 2008. Hyper-cynics believe that she and her husband are actually hoping for a Democratic loss in 2004. By 2008 Hillary will be ready for primetime.
The last thing she would want is an incumbent Democratic president to mess up her plans. (And if Bush is re-elected, she won’t even have an incumbent vice-president, because Dick Cheney won’t run.) She and her husband already exercise strong control over the party through their cheesy henchman Terry McAuliffe, who is still party chairman. What better strategy than to stay above the fray, while a bunch of ragged and raw aspirants squabble into a loss? And so far the Democratic field looks particularly forlorn. Between Massachusetts senator John Kerry’s pious hauteur, former Vermont governor Howard Dean’s mean streak, Senator John Edwards’s boyish callowness and Lieberman’s lugubrious tedium, it’s not looking like a great future for the Dems. Perhaps their best hope is Dick Gephardt, the unions’ darling. But on a good day, Gephardt makes Cheney look like Ali G. Lively he ain’t.
So Hillary bides her time, waiting for the kill. She’s probably hoping that in a few years’ time her capacity to polarise the country will have abated. Such a hope is probably ill-founded. A large swathe of Americans would rather see Jacques Chirac elected American president than Hillary Rodham Clinton. But the same could have been said about Richard Nixon in the late 1960s, and he still won. So could she. And so far she has been playing her hand very, very smoothly.
Regards, Ivan
This fact has her salivating all over herself.
The fly in the ointment is Jeb. I think the message Bush is sending with Cheney is, "don't get exicted. No veep is going to walk into the presidency."
Jeb, on the other hand, may have a powerful constituency by then. His greatest drawback (and his greatest strength) is that he is W's brother. As such, I don't know how receptive Americans would be to an unbroken family dynasty. And that scares me. That opens just enough of a crack in the door for Hillary to squeeze one of those thunderous ankles through.
Ivan thanks for the post.
NFP
So slight that if we allow her to win, we DESERVE her.
I heard those same words a hundred times when she ran for Senator from New York. Then she went on to win even the normally Republican areas of New York State. If no women were to vote in 2008, I'd bet with you.
And she ran a pretty flawless campaign, even winning over the more conservative constituents in upper New York state, a place as culturally distant from lower Manhattan as the hinterlands of Pennsylvania.
If this witch runs for President, I will take a sabbatical to join the Republican presidential campaign, at either the state level or the national level.
No amount of sacrifice will be too much to keep this cancer from infecting our country during eight l-o-n-g years.
This is the same Hillary who stood on the Senate floor holding a newpaper in the air that said "Bush Knew!"
That Hillary is the one who's backed the war on terror?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.