Could Clark Be a Stalking Horse for Hillary Clinton?

Forums: Politics
Email this Topic • Print this Page

CQ TODAY - WHITE HOUSE TRAIL MIX
Sept. 18, 2003 - 12:23 p.m.
Could Clark Be a Stalking Horse for Hillary Clinton?
By Craig Crawford, special contributor to Congressional Quarterly and a news analyst for MSNBC, CNBC and CBS News. He can be reached at (202) 419-8644 or at [email protected].

CLINTON-CLARK.
Don't laugh. I'm serious.

That ticket is the only way I can make sense of Gen. Wesley Clark's sudden adventure into presidential politics.

Clark must be a stalking horse for Hillary Rodham Clinton. And not for her to be his running mate, as some suggest ?- but the other way around.

Sure, believing that the junior senator from New York will run for the 2004 Democratic presidential nomination might be the political equivalent of believing in Unidentified Flying Objects.

But on Wednesday, I am sure I saw a UFO flying over the head of Clark as he announced his quest for the presidency from Little Rock, Ark. Piloted by the Clinton pals now managing Clark's every movement, this flying saucer could soon land and reveal its true cargo: Hillary.

The publicly-known list of Clintonites on Clark's team encourages speculation that the 42nd president and New York's senator are somewhere in the mix. It includes former presidential spokesman Mark Fabiani; fundraiser Skip Rutherford; confidant Bruce Lindsey; and 1992 campaign bosses Eli Segal and Mickey Kantor. Others, including former aides to Vice President Al Gore, are in the wings.

Suspend disbelief for a moment and consider the scenario. For Clinton to run, she needs more time to shake her pledge to New York voters that she would not seek the presidency this soon. The massive media buzz surrounding Clark's nascent campaign buys her time by diverting attention from the only threat to a Clinton bid ?- former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean's dazzling rise in the nomination race.

Husband Bill publicly launched the pledge-dodge maneuver for his wife just as Clinton loyalists working for Clark leaked word to the media that the general would definitely run.

How convenient that Bill Clinton's own former chief of staff Leon E. Panetta asked the set-up question at a forum on Sept. 16 in Monterey, Calif. Panetta asked if there was "a chance" Hillary Clinton would run in the current campaign.

"That's really a decision for her to make," Bill Clinton said. But didn't Sen. Clinton already say she had made her decision, repeatedly vowing not to run? Why did he not repeat her official stand?

Having cracked the door open much further than his wife ever has, Bill then oddly ruminated about the vagaries of her pledge to New York voters.

"I was impressed at the state fair in New York, which is in Republican country in upstate New York, at how many New Yorkers came up and said they would release her from her commitment if she wanted to do it," Clinton said. "But she said ... she just doesn't understand how to walk away from that. So I just have to take her for where she is right now."

He knows plenty about such things. To run for president in 1992, Clinton had to conduct a series of town hall meetings with Arkansas voters asking to be released from a similar pledge he made in his 1990 campaign for reelection as governor. He had no trouble putting it behind him.

Freezing The Field
Clark's bid hurts more people than Dean, the media-anointed front-runner who has so far faced no serious threat from the existing field. The other major candidates are harmed in various ways, making it all the more likely that the race could be unsettled by the time Clinton would jump in.

Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts can no longer claim to be the only combat veteran running, a central rationale of his campaign.

Rep. Dick Gephardt of Missouri now faces another high-profile foe who opposed the Iraq War that the former House minority leader so strenuously supported a year ago when it seemed like the thing to do.

With so many former aides to Clinton and Al Gore on Clark's team, Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut no longer seems to be the heir apparent, a status conferred by his stint as Gore's 2000 running mate.

Sens. John Edwards of North Carolina and Bob Graham of Florida now must contend with a rival whose Southern roots threaten their already-floundering bids to be Dixie's favorite son. Clark's first campaign swing took him to Graham's home state and Edward's native state, South Carolina.

Now comes the hard part for the Clinton-Clark ticket. How does a candidate who is running drop out, endorse someone who is not running ?- and then become her running mate?

Such drama is not beyond Clinton's reach. She is, after all, the first First Lady with the audacity and skill to win elected office of any kind, let alone a Senate seat.

My best shot at imagining this scenario begins with Clark building the foundations of a national campaign by running a credible two-month effort, raising a respectable amount of cash and deploying former Clinton-Gore staffers around the country.

In the meantime, the Clintons continue their tease. She keeps saying "no" while everyone around her, including her husband, says "maybe." They closely watch President Bush's polling strength. If his slide continues, they pull the trigger in late November.

Clark and Clinton stage a summit and in a sudden burst of activity, the deal is done and she takes over his campaign organization just in time for the Nov. 21 filing deadline for the New Hampshire primary.

You may now resume disbelief. Unless you've seen a UFO lately.

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 754 • Replies: 4

No top replies

This sounds right on target
As strange as it may seem, this scenario appears to be right on target. A very smart and clever approach to getting the nomination for Hillary Clinton four years before her planned attempt.

It shows the required flexibility a smart candidate needs in today's unsettled political world. Hillary Clinton is smart enough to pull it off---IF Wes Clark is willing to accept her at the top of the ticket if his own status is running ahead of Bush. That's the unknown factor that change everything. Hillary would have to have a lot of trust in Clark's promises to go that route.

---BumbleBeeBoogie

0 Replies

Wm. Safire: Clintons Anoint Clark
OP-ED COLUMNIST New York Times - 9/22/03
Clintons Anoint Clark
By WILLIAM SAFIRE

WASHINGTON

The Clintons decided that the Democratic primary campaign was getting out of hand. Howard Dean was getting all the buzz and too much of the passionate left's money. Word was out that Dean as nominee, owing Clintonites nothing, would quickly dump Terry McAuliffe, through whom Bill and Hillary maintain control of the Democratic National Committee.

That's when word was leaked of the former president's observation at an intimate dinner party at the Clinton Chappaqua, N.Y., estate that "there are two stars in the Democratic Party ?- Hillary and Wes Clark."

Meanwhile, the four-star general that Clinton fired for being a publicity hog during the Kosovo liberation has been surrounded by the Clinton-Gore mafia. Lead agent is Mark Fabiani, the impeachment spinmeister; he brought in the rest of the Restoration coterie. When reporters start poking into any defense contracts Clark arranged for clients after his retirement, he will have the lip-zipping services of the Clinton confidant Bruce Lindsey.

As expected, fickle media that had been entranced with Dean (Dr. Lose-the-War) dropped the cranky Vermonter like a cold couch potato and are lionizing Clinton's fellow Arkansan and fellow Rhodes Scholar. He's new, handsome, intellectual, a genuine Silver Star Vietnam hero and taught economics at West Point.

I admired Nato Commander Clark's military aggressiveness when the Serbs were slaughtering civilians in Kosovo. He wanted to use Apache helicopter gunships and send in NATO troops, as John McCain urged, but Clinton sided with Pentagon brass fearful of U.S. casualties, and the lengthy air campaign was conducted from 15,000 feet up; thousands of Kosovars died. (Four years later, U.N.-administered Kosovo is still not sovereign, and Clinton was there last week saying "I think we belong here until our job is finished.")

As a boot-in-mouth politician, however, Clark ranks with Arnold Schwarzenegger. He began by claiming to have been pressured to stop his defeatist wartime CNN commentary by someone "around the White House"; challenged, he morphed that source into a Canadian Middle East think tank, equally fuzzy.

Worse, as his Clinton handlers cringed, he blew his antiwar appeal by telling reporters "I probably would have voted for" the Congressional resolution authorizing Bush to invade Iraq. Next day, the chastised candidate flip-flopped, claiming "I would never have voted for war."

Clark's strange explanation: "I've said it both ways, because when you get into this, what happens is you have to put yourself in a position." He put himself in the hot-pretzel position ?- softly twisted.

Let's assume the Clinton handlers teach him the rudiments of verbal discipline and the Clinton fund-raising machine makes him a viable candidate. To what end? What's in it for the Clintons?

Control. First, control of the Democratic Party machinery, threatened by the sudden emergence of Dean and his antiestablishment troops. Second, control of the Democratic ideological position, making sure it remains on the respectable left of center.

What if, as Christmas nears, the economy should tank and President Bush becomes far more vulnerable? Hillary would have to announce willingness to accept a draft. Otherwise, should the maverick Dean take the nomination and win, Clinton dreams of a Restoration die.

Here is where the politically inexperienced Clark comes in. He is the Clintons' most attractive stalking horse, useful in stopping Dean and diluting support for Kerry, Lieberman or Gephardt. If Bush stumbles and the Democratic nomination becomes highly valuable, the Clintons probably think they would be able to get Clark to step aside without splintering the party, rewarding his loyalty with second place on the ticket.

G'wan, you say, the Clintons should be supporting Dean, a likely loser to Bush, thereby ensuring the Clinton Restoration in 2008. But plainly they are not. Their candidate is Clark. Either they are for him because (altruistic version) they think Clark would best lead the party and country for the next eight years, leaving them applauding on the sidelines, or (Machiavellian version) they think his muddy-the-waters candidacy is their ticket back to the White House in 2004 or 2008.

Which is more like the Clintons?

0 Replies

Bill Clinton 'urging Hillary to run for White House'
Ananova:
Story filed: 14:33 Monday 22nd September 2003

Clinton 'urging Hillary to run for White House'

Former US President Bill Clinton is reportedly urging wife to stand for election to the White House.

Hillary Clinton, a Democratic Senator for New York, denies she will attempt to follow her husband's career path in the Presidential election next year.

But with evidence Democratic candidate General Wesley Clark is gathering growing support, Mr Clinton is trying to get his wife into the race, says a Time magazine report.

If Gen Clark, former Supreme Allied Commander of Nato, wins the race to the White House it would scupper Mrs Clinton's hopes in 2008, when she is expected to run.

And with President George Bush's ratings on the slide, some Democrats are increasingly optimistic about Mr Clark's chances.

Two sources told Time magazine that Mr Clinton has been urging his wife to reconsider her decision not to enter the 2004 race.

Her biggest obstacle would be back-tracking on promises that she wants to remain in the Senate for another three years, a difficulty which her husband is now said to be mulling over.

Aides to the couple do not deny the claims but insist Mrs Clinton will remain a Senator until 2006. Mr Clinton reportedly described his wife and Gen Clark as the "two stars" of the Democratic party during a gathering earlier this month.

At the weekend, a Newsweek magazine poll showed Gen Clark as the favourite among registered Democrat voters. There are 10 Democratic candidates competing to oust Mr Bush.

Meanwhile, Mr Bush's approval rating has fallen, amid growing concerns at home about the war in Iraq and the economy.

0 Replies

New Yorkers Say Nay to Hillary White House Run
http://1010wins.com
New Yorkers Say Nay to Hillary White House Run
Sep 24, 2003 11:05 am US/Eastern

A growing number of New York voters, including almost six in 10 Democrats, don't want Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton to run for president in 2004, a statewide poll reported Wednesday.

The poll from Marist College's Institute for Public Opinion also found that two-thirds of New York voters take the former first lady at her word when she says she won't seek the White House next year.

New York voters are about evenly split on whether they would like to see Democrat Clinton run for the presidency someday.

In the latest Marist poll, 69 percent of New York voters, including 57 percent of Democrats, said they didn't want to see Clinton run in 2004. In an April poll from the Poughkeepsie-based pollster, 54 percent of New York voters said they didn't want her to run for the White House next year.

During a recent visit to the New York State Fair, Clinton said she was absolutely ruling out a presidential run in 2004. While speculation has continued since that she might make a late entry into the race, 67 percent of New York voters in the latest poll say they think she will stick to her pledge to serve out her full six-year Senate term that ends in 2006.

On running for the White House someday, 50 percent of New York voters said she should while 46 percent said she should never run for the presidency. The former first lady has not ruled out a presidential run in 2008.

Asked about the poll, spokesman Philippe Reines offered what has become the Clinton camp's mantra in response to such queries: "Senator Clinton has repeatedly said that she will serve out her full six year term. She loves her job, and is working on being the best senator she can be for the people of New York."

If Clinton were to jump into the 2004 race, most New York Democrats make her the clear front runner for the state's March 2 Democratic presidential primary. In that case, she led the field with 46 percent support to Sen. Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut's 14 percent.

Marist pollster Lee Miringoff noted that 30 percent of the Democrats who said they would vote for Clinton in the Democratic presidential primary don't want her to run.

With Clinton not in the race, New York's Democratic voters had Lieberman on top at 23 percent followed by former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean at 13 percent and New York's Al Sharpton at 10 percent. The other seven Democratic candidates were all in single digits. The newest arrival to the campaign, former Gen. Wesley Clark, was at 6 percent among Democratic voters. Twenty-three percent of Democrats were undecided.

"Wesley Clark has some support, but clearly he has his work cut out for him in New York," Miringoff said.

The independent pollster noted that Dean's support had grown to 13 percent from just 4 percent in April, the sharpest increase among the candidates.

"The race in New York is clearly wide open on the Democratic side," Miringoff said.

The poll came out on the eve of a Democratic presidential debate in New York City.

On Tuesday, the Marist poll reported that Republican President Bush's approval rating was slipping in New York. It was 44 percent in the latest poll, down from 58 percent in April.

Marist's new telephone poll of 912 registered voters was conducted Sept. 15-18 and has a sampling error margin of plus or minus 3.5 percentage points. The error margin for sampling based on questions to 397 registered Democrats was plus or minus 5 percentage points.

0 Replies

Could Clark Be a Stalking Horse for Hillary Clinton?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know