Reply
Fri 29 Aug, 2003 12:00 pm
HILLARY TO RUN IN 2004 - SKY NEWS 8/29/03
Former US first lady Hillary Clinton is planning to enter the US Presidential race in 2004, reports say.
The New York Senator is expected to meet advisers - including her husband and ex-President Bill Clinton - next week to discuss the decision.
Mrs Clinton announced at the start of the summer that she would not compete for the Democratic nomination, even though she enjoyed huge support within the party.
She was expected to run for the White House in 2008.
Her rethink has been prompted by the sudden drop in support for President George Bush, whose problems in Iraq and with the economy have made him look vulnerable, according to veteran US political commentator Richard Reeves.
If another Democrat defeats Mr Bush next November and then runs for re-election in 2008, Mrs Clinton's next chance to challenge for the Presidency would not be until 2012, when she will be 65 years old.
But if she does run this time she faces an already crowded field of nine Democratic hopefuls who all have a head start on her.
Surprise front-runner Howard Dean is on course to raise £6.5 million in campaign donations during the current financial quarter, matching a Democratic record set by Mr Clinton when he was standing for re-election.
Former Nato Supreme Commander Wesley Clark is also expected to announce his candidacy in the next few weeks.
However, polls indicate that Mrs Clinton would get between 37% and 48% support from the Democratic party nationally, compared to highs of between 15% and 20% for her rivals, who also include Senator John Kerry and former Vice-presidential candidate Joe Lieberman.
-----------------------
ANANOVA 8/29/03
Hillary 'to join White House race'
Hillary Clinton is reportedly planning to enter the race for the White House, despite earlier ruling herself out of the 2004 campaign.
The New York Senator is expected to meet her advisers - who include her husband Bill Clinton - next week to discuss the decision.
Mrs Clinton announced at the start of the summer she would not compete for the Democratic nomination even though she enjoyed huge support within the party.
Her rethink was prompted by the sudden drop in support for President George Bush, whose problems in Iraq and with the economy have made him look vulnerable, according to veteran US political commentator Richard Reeves.
If another Democrat defeats Mr Bush next November and then runs for re-election in 2008, Mrs Clinton's next chance to challenge for the Presidency would not be until 2012, when she will be 65 years old.
But if she does run this time she faces an already crowded field of nine Democratic hopefuls who all have a head start on her.
Surprise front-runner Howard Dean is on course to raise £6.5 million in campaign donations during the current financial quarter, matching a Democratic record set by Mr Clinton when he was standing for re-election.
Former Nato Supreme Commander Wesley Clark is also expected to announce his candidacy in the next few weeks.
However, polls indicate that Mrs Clinton would get between 37% and 48% support from the Democratic party nationally, compared to highs of between 15% and 20% for her rivals, who also include Senator John Kerry and former Vice-presidential candidate Joe Lieberman.
Story filed: 15:00 Friday 29th August 2003
------------------------------------
Interesting. She has said she'd never run.
She will never win, so for the democratic party to have any chance, they will not nominate her.
Huh. I don't know what I think about this. A Bush Sr., Mr. Clinton X 2, Bush Jr., and Mrs. Clinton run in the White House would certainly be... interesting. Two families having control over 20 years.
Since none of the sources of 'reportedly' are i.d'd, I think i'll wait to see it to believe it.
I'd guess this is just more smoke. I'll believe she's running when I see it coming from her own mouth.
It seems like every time one of the current contenders for the Democratiic Party nomination gets any sort of significant lead in the polls there is a new rumour about Hillary that freezes the electorate for a few weeks.
Could it be that the White House is spreading the story, through it's ministry of propaganda.
Righties are runining scared already........................
I think she would have stood a very good chance if she had gotten in the race a lot sooner. The Clinton's have thus far soundly trounced the Republicans when they've run against them. But, to enter now would just befuddle the selection process and possibly cause the Democrats to lose too much momentum. I would like to see her gain the presidency, but I think too many things are working against it.
there is no way she will run this time around, these rumours have been floating around for at least a year without merit. 2008 might be a different matter entirely but i doubt that too.
Veddy interesting and curiouser and curiouser...
I went to bring back one of the three articles on mSNBC, about Hillary's proposed meeting to discuss her run.
All three are gone... Never saw this happen before. Usually, the stories move down the list until they drop off the bottom. These were all three at the top of their lists. They were yanked.
Hilary, IMO, should stay in the senate where she is gaining seniority and will have much more power than she ever would as president.
Rats, you Rebups can rest easier now. You have a slightly better chance in that Hill has announced she is not running.
I think that the hillmonster running would only drive many moderate to right leaning Democrats away. I am not an anything, but am independent, and am planning on voting for Dean, if he gets the nomination. If not, it's Bill and Opus in 2004.
Drive them where - to Bush,
No, drive them away from voting. This has been where the Republicans have been successful. They mobilize church groups, senior centres, etc..to get out and vote. The Democrats need to do the same thing. Part of the problem lies in that the far right are soooooo very passionate in the things they believe in (your basic Christian charity, like killing people, starving the poor, bombing civilians, forcing religion down people's throats, etc...) that they would vote three or four times if they could (see: Computerized Voting). We liberals are apparently not passionate enough. Where does one take foaming at the mouth lessons?
hobitbob wrote:No, drive them away from voting. This has been where the Republicans have been successful. They mobilize church groups, senior centres, etc..to get out and vote. The Democrats need to do the same thing. Part of the problem lies in that the far right are soooooo very passionate in the things they believe in (your basic Christian charity, like killing people, starving the poor, bombing civilians, forcing religion down people's throats, etc...) that they would vote three or four times if they could (see: Computerized Voting). We liberals are apparently not passionate enough. Where does one take foaming at the mouth lessons?
BWAH HA HA HA! Apparently you've managed to miss the history of vote fraud from the left. Your entire post here is so far out to lunch it's laughable. I'd say you've got the foaming down pat.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace