Skip to comments.Democrats Fawn Over Hillary at 2004 Strategy Meet
Posted on 07/30/2002 6:59:50 AM PDT by InvisibleChurch
Hillary Rodham Clinton stole the show at a New York gabfest of 2004 Democratic presidential wannabes yesterday with a passionate defense of her husband's policies and a sharp attack on President Bush's team as pals of the rich.
Clinton, who insists she's not seeking her husband's old job, hit similar themes to three Democrats who do want to run - but she got a much louder, more visceral response at the Democratic Leadership Council.
"She's more effective than pretty much anybody but her husband . . . She's just got it," said Los Angeles Council Member Jack Weiss.
"I wish she would run. She's very charismatic," said Maine state Rep. Lisa Tessier Marrache.
The DLC, which bills itself as the home of centrist "New Democrats," served as Bill Clinton's base when he ran for president, and Sen. Clinton's speech was the keynote at its national meeting.
Sens. Joe Lieberman (Conn.), Tom Daschle (S.D.) and John Kerry (Mass.) also spoke yesterday, with Sen. John Edwards (N.C.) and Rep. Dick Gephardt (Mo.) to follow today.
Sen. Clinton says she won't run for president - aides say vice president isn't on the horizon either - and pollsters now generally omit her from 2004 surveys. When included, she's second to Al Gore.
But the response she drew yesterday underscored the fact that none of the real 2004 wannabes was able to make the same kind of emotional connection with a friendly, receptive Democratic crowd.
Without mentioning Bush by name, Clinton denounced the president's portrayal of the go-go 1990s as an era of "binge" excess that left America with a giant "hangover."
"Now some have recently called that record a binge. Young people able to afford college, and they call that a binge? Millions climbing out of welfare into new jobs, and that's some kind of excess?" she fumed.
She painted Democrats as friends of ordinary folks and Republicans as supporters of special interests whose response to insider trading and accounting fraud is: "Don't ask, don't tell."
Behind the scenes at the event, much of the chatter was about Gore's decision to skip the forum hosted by the DLC, whose founder, Al From, has been sharply critical of Gore's populist "us-against-them" rhetoric in 2000.
"We're not into class resentment and warfare," From said - though in fact, all of the Democratic wannabes joined Clinton in using populist rhetoric to blast Bush as a pal of the rich.
Kerry said the Bush tax cut was "irresponsible and unfairly structured." Daschle said it was a tax for "the wealthiest" Americans. And Lieberman said Bush favors "special favors for special interests."
All of them, along with Clinton, said they oppose making the Bush tax cut permanent but, although they said it was a mistake, they declined to call for repeal of the president's tax cut.
Although the speakers denounced corporate scandals, DLC spokeswoman Karin Kullman acknowledged the group has taken donations from both companies and hasn't returned them.
She said the donations weren't recent but declined to specify the amounts.
Alone among the presidential hopefuls, Kerry sought to make foreign policy a central disagreement with Bush, arguing the president has mishandled the war on terror and failed to make the case for invading Iraq.
She is a threat. If she ran in 2004, or in 2008, there is a chance she could win. She is becoming like Princess Diana, thanks to a fawning press.
The recent articles declaring Hillary to be a moderate (of all things!) are similar to the stuff that was going on with her "husband" when he moved to the middle to deceive those of short memory.
Save us, someone please, from this creature!
Likewise, I still think Gore is a dangerous enemy, even though most here just laugh him off. He hasn't changed his stripes. He's an environmental kook who'd just as soon throw away the technology and infrastructure that has in large part contributed to the growth and welfare of our Republic to appease those who form the base of his political support. He'll lie at the behest of his masters and demand the same of those who would serve him. I shudder to think that he came within a whisker of sitting in that chair in the Oval Office, and that a half a million more of our fellow citizens voted for him than the honorable person now holding what is arguably the most powerful political position on Earth at any time in history.
Lazio was a lousy candidate, for a couple of reasons. First of all was the late start he got, so he didn't have real name recognition (not his fault). Second, given his late start, the moron took off the better part of a month during the campaign. Meanwhile, to give credit where credit is due, Hitlery visited every county in New York.
I do wish that she'd run. It would be like McGovern in '72. She will do well in the cities/states along the coasts, plus Chicago, but will get creamed everywhere else. It will be Red vs. Blue like in 2000, only more so. Hitlery doesn't cut it in the South or the heartland, only in those areas seriously infected by lieberalism. An additional handicap is her personality and history.
And it should be very interesting to see if Hitlery gets away with the same tactics as she did in the NY race, that is, not allowing any sort of give-and-take questions from the press.
She will never appear on Fox for one thing (not unless Alan Colmes is the one doing the interview) and has to have such a controlled setting that you just have to laugh.
The press will give her a pass in 2004, just as they did in 2000.
Go ask Sen. Lazio how that turned out.
Alas...poor Lazio entered the campaign late (due to Guiliani's troubles) and subsequently was behind in fund raising, Lazio ran a poor campaign. He did not effectively debate Hillary, did not question her on positions. He did not seemed prepared. In a debate, when Lazio went over to Hillary's side of the stage to get her to sign a pledge...her campaign just made her a 'victim' again. That Lazio was 'invading' her space, that he acted as a spousal abuser. Lazio never did get untracked.
This woman who has never paid for her own house in her life and whose husband plays golf with the movers and shakers while charging $100k/speech is a friend of ordinary folks? I'd like to see the press interview one ordinary folk who ever socializes with the Clintoons.
I remember, but there are two other things I remember.
That sitting, popular President lied about not raising taxes and paid dearly for it. He also wasn't nearly as charismatic as his son.
Let's face it, one of the very few things that W. and Clinton have in common is that they are both friendly looking people who make you think you can trust them when you look at them.
Of course, one of them is living proof of that saying about not judging books by their covers.
Remember tho' -- the truth doesn't matter...the press will continue to mouth the Democrat lies, that they are the friends of the "downtrodden" (nevermind that they've kept their foot firmly on the neck of said people) and champion of the "regular folks" or the "little guy", while the Republicans are for the top 1% and Big Business...many regular "folks" (like those coal miners in PA.)are conservative and vote Republian...but the press seems oblivious to this...it's simply amazing !
Go ask Sen. Lazio how that turned out."
While I am not about to write off the viability of a Hillary campaign for President, I'm not sure her victory in New York is a reason to be especially worried, in and of itself.
While she won election, her campaign can hardly be considered impressive. Despite running against a no-name Republican who ran a late-starting, ineffective campaign, Hillary only won by 11 points; this in a liberal stronghold of a state that Al Gore carried by a whopping 25 points over George W. Bush.
Considering that the Hillary vote lagged far behind that of the Democrats' standard-bearer, in one of the bluest states in the country, I am unconvinced how her message will play out in less blue places such as Pennsylvania, Michigan, Missouri, Florida, et. al.
I'm not discounting her by any means. But she has to prove that she's not so polarizing a political figure that she can win outside of the traditional bastions of liberalism.
Socialists and Liberals are the definition of Hypocrites.I'm not surprised at this at all.This is to be expected. Nothing new to be learned here,just another fresh reminder that they are "Dividers".
Yeah,and so was Joseph Goebbels.But at least that digusting piece of dirt is referred to as "...Seen in the long view, Goebbels preached, 'the best propaganda is that which does no more than serve the truth'." And Shrillary Clinton knows nothing about serving the truth,which in some sick way,makes her worse than him.It's only just begun America.From The Journal of Historical Review---if you have 5 free minutes to read the similarities in their character,I submit for your perusal: http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v15/v15n1p18_Weber.html