A Clark/hillary Ticket In 2004? - Big Big Forums

Jolie Rouge · 09-24-2003, 01:28 AM

by Gary D. Halbert
September 23, 2003

Three surprises: two that should have surprised no one, and one we need to think about... First, retired General Wesley Clark entered the Democratic presidential race last week (he said as much over a month ago). Second, he immediately became the front-runner (like that took much!). Third, Clark apparently has the full support and backing of Bill and Hillary Clinton and the DNC political machine (this one requires some explaining).

The embrace of Clark by the Clintons has many wondering why. I’ll tell you why. In short, they are scared of Howard Dean who is a threat to their defacto control of the Democratic party. So they have shoved Clark, who they can control, into the race. The question is, will it work?

Polls released over the weekend and since show that Clark has vaulted to the front of the Democratic pack in just a week. Republicans must admit, this is impressive, relatively speaking. However, other polls showed that President Bush would beat Clark 47-43 if the election were held today, as compared to polls that showed Bush would trounce former Dem frontrunner Howard Dean by 47-38.

This week we look at the facts, the rumors and the likely goings-on behind the scenes in Wesley Clark’s latest coming-out party and why the Clintons have jumped on his bandwagon…

Can you say, Hillary for Vice-President? Hum……

The Clintons Back Clark – Why?

Some of my conservative friends and colleagues are scratching their heads over why Bill Clinton, and to a lesser extent, Hillary would come out in support of Wesley Clark. It has been widely reported that former president Bill Clinton actually urged Clark to get into the race and promised to support him. The question is, why would the Clintons come out in support of Clark, who some feel is the only candidate that might actually have a chance against President Bush?

It is no longer any secret that Hillary is eyeing a run for the White House in 2008. I am certainly not alone in thinking that the Clintons would just as soon see Bush win in 2004, so that Hillary would not have to unseat a Democrat incumbent president for the party nomination in 2008. So again the question is, why would the Clintons come out in support of Clark?

Jolie Rouge · 09-24-2003, 01:31 AM

{{page two****

The answer is, Howard Dean.

Former Vermont governor Howard Dean was clearly the frontrunner among the Democratic contenders. If Dean were to win the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primary in January, which looked very likely before Clark got in the race, he would be well on his way to wrapping up the nomination as early as February. This would be a major problem for the Clintons.

The Clintons maintain control of the Democratic party by way of Terry McAuliffe, their long-time friend and chairman of the DNC. Howard Dean and McAuliffe are said to despise each other. Thus, it is widely believed that if Dean gets the nomination, and perhaps even before, he would replace McAuliffe and the other Clinton cronies in the DNC with anti-establishment types within his crowd.

So, while the Clintons might just as soon see Dean get the nomination, and then be beaten handily by Bush next year, thus leaving the door wide open for Hillary in 2008, they do not want to relinquish control of the party.

A friend asked me why the Clintons wouldn’t throw their support behind one of the other candidates such as Gephardt or Kerry, either of whom might be content to leave McAuliffe and the Clintons in power. The problem is, the Clintons can’t control Gephardt or Kerry – they don’t owe the Clintons anything.

Wesley Clark does. Bill Clinton anointed him and he has soared to the top in less than a week. Several polls released over the weekend, and since, show Clark ahead of all the other Dem candidates.

It would be most interesting to know if the Clintons really believe Clark has a chance against Bush. Some observers believe that the Clintons think Clark is strong enough to snuff out Dean, but not formidable enough to beat Bush. If so, that works for the Hillary in 2008 scenario, which is now being referred to as the “Clinton Restoration.”

A Smart Political Move?

It has been noted frequently by the politicos in the media that none of the Democratic wannabes have raised any serious money from the deep pockets in the party. Howard Dean, for example, has raised most of his loot on the Internet in the way of mostly small donations. The big money in the party has been waiting on the sidelines to see if anyone else gets in the race.

The Clintons hosted a dinner two weeks ago at their Chappaqua mansion for, reportedly, 150 or so of the party’s largest potential donors. It has been widely reported that Hillary told the guests to hold their donations “for my next campaign, whatever that might be.” This quote has been out there for two weeks, and to my knowledge, Hillary has not denied making it. It is curious indeed.

Now that they have anointed Clark, we should expect to see the Clinton money machine kick into high gear. Clark should have no trouble raising a lot of money if the Clintons really get behind him. But one wonders, as noted above, if the Clintons merely want Clark to beat Dean and lose to Bush, or whether they really want him to win.

Former Clinton advisor, Dick Morris, stated in a New York Post column today that he is certain the Clintons do NOT want Clark to win the election. Morris believes the Clintons have rallied behind Clark only so that he takes out Dean but loses to Bush.

Jolie Rouge · 09-24-2003, 01:35 AM

{{page three****

Hillary As Vice President?

There is some speculation that Clark will ask Hillary to be his running mate in the VP slot if it looks like he has a chance to win. Let me say that I have no idea if this is true or not, but it does have some interesting implications.

There would be some clear advantages to a Clark/Hillary ticket, assuming Clark gets the nomination. First, as much as conservatives hate to admit it, a Clark/Hillary ticket would be formidable, relatively speaking. Remember that Hillary still dwarfs all the Democratic contenders in the polls. Second, if Hillary vaults into the national scene as Clark’s running mate, it would allow them to air all of her “dirty laundry” later this year and next year – instead of in 2007 and 2008.

Certainly, there would be some disadvantages as well, assuming Hillary plans to run in 2008. The obvious question is, what happens if Clark wins in 2004 and wants to run again in 2008? That would mean that Hillary would not have a shot until 2012 when she would be 65 years old. Or would Clark agree to step aside after one term and let Hillary take the nomination?

There are many interesting questions swirling around the candidacy of Wesley Clark and whatever plans Hillary may have. Of course, all the latest talk of Hillary getting the VP slot may be nothing more than gossip.

And, let us not forget, Hillary could still jump in the 2004 race for president. Yes, she continues to deny it, but if Bush’s approval ratings should fall below 50% (currently 52% in the aggregate), she may not be able to resist. Her husband has been dropping some interesting hints along this line, reportedly saying at their recent dinner party that there are only “two stars” in the Democratic party – Wesley Clark and Hillary… So much for the wannabes!

Clark Is Not Without Some Baggage

Wesley Clark has an enviable resume: four star general; supreme NATO commander; onetime head of the U.S. Southern Command; first in his class at West Point Rhodes Scholar; etc. That’s not to mention he is handsome, vibrant and an outsider.

From Clark’s speeches and writings over the last year, it appears he is pro-choice, pro-affirmative action, pro-immigration, supports a progressive tax policy (read: higher taxes), is wary of the US Patriot Act, doesn't support drilling in the Alaskan Wildlife Refuge, and supports a broad social safety net. He’s a rare liberal general.

Clark waffled over the war in Iraq. One day last week, he said he probably would have voted for it had he been in Congress. The next day, he said he would have never voted for it. In any event, he would have preferred a multinational coalition with United Nations oversight.

There are some questions about his military career, especially in the later years prior to being fired (early retirement) by Bill Clinton in 2000. You can read more about this in the link below to a column by Robert Novak.

Clark has some other obstacles as well. While he has spiked to frontrunner status in just a few days, he is still a late entry to the party. He has never held any political office before. He has never been under the microscope. He is also reported to be “thin-skinned” and has quite a temper. The Clintons and the various ex-Clinton/Gore advisors Clark has hired will no doubt speed him up the political learning curve, but it may not be as easy as some currently think.

Will Clark Wear Well?

Many in the Democratic leadership feel Clark is the perfect candidate to bring the fractured party back together. He’s liberal; he’s anti-war (sort of); he’s intelligent; and he could be the one man who could revive the party’s tattered image on national security. Some even believe that because Clark has no domestic agenda yet, he is free to stake out only the most popular domestic positions. Could be.

Yet there are others who believe that General Clark’s popularity will fade fast, and that we should not count out Howard Dean. I was surprised to see this morning that the first four editorial columns on realclearpolitics.com were actually negative on Clark.

[I’ve told you about rwww.realclearpolitics.com in the past. It’s one of the few websites I visit every day. It includes a dozen or more selected editorials every day from various newspapers around the country. I highly recommend it.]

Jolie Rouge · 09-24-2003, 01:42 AM

{{Page Four****

Dick Morris had the following to say in his New York Post column today:

Quote:

QUOTE: “Clark’s rise is clearly a media-inspired flavor of the week. When Dean graced the front pages of Time and Newsweek, he was similarly honored with a first-place rating. Clark’s surge is not so much a testament to his strength as to the weakness of Bush on the one hand and the Democratic field on the other.

Clark will not wear well. His early gaffes show his inexperience. He would be a bit like a latter-day Dwight D. Eisenhower, except that nobody can quite recall what war it is that he won. The initial enthusiasm for his candidacy really came from Europe, where this general-who-opposes-war is the kind of guy only the elites of Paris can truly love. The only primary he has locked up is Democrats abroad.

But then Bill Clinton picked up the Clark banner and had his staff rally around his fellow Arkansan. Why? Hillary and Bill support confusion, chaos and consternation as their preferred strategy for Democrats in 2004. Determined that nobody but they capture the White House - or even the Democratic Party - the Clintons are opposed to anyone who gains momentum.

In the long run, Dean’s momentum will prove real and Clark’s will be seen as bogus. Dean has amassed a base of grassroots (or cyber-roots) support by tapping into two groups - gays and peaceniks. His message spread among them not as a result of top-down advertising but by the new Internet style of viral, horizontal marketing. Gays and their supporters and anti-war zealots spread the word among themselves that Dean was their man. The result was a genuine outpouring of backing from small donors and local activists.

The Dean candidacy is the first creation of the Internet age. By contrast, Clark’s is perhaps the last of the media-created candidacies. Dean’s support will carry him through the early primaries. He will likely score one-punch knockouts in Iowa of Gephardt, in New Hampshire of Kerry, and in South Carolina of Edwards.” END QUOTE.

If Morris is correct, the Clintons lose big-time! Also, if he’s right, it will be interesting to see how fast the Clintons jump ship from Wes Clark. And does that mean that Hillary has to get in the race to stop Dean?

Conclusions

It is going to be very interesting to see how this political battle plays out between Clark and the Clintons against Howard Dean. The most recent polls on the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primary show Dean ahead, but these were taken before Clark got in the race. New polls should be out in the next week or so when we will know more about Clark’s popularity in these early primaries which will be pivotal.

As for Hillary’s intentions, I wouldn’t make a bet either way at this point. The keys to her decision (assuming there is one) will be: 1) Bush’s approval ratings; and 2) whether Clark can snuff out Dean. Also, keep in mind that the filing deadline for the New Hampshire primary is November 21. If she wants to run in the primaries, she needs to file by then. We’ll see.

Bush’s approval ratings seem to have stabilized in the low-to-mid 50s. While they could drift lower, they could also go up. Economic news should be very encouraging for the 3Q; some economists expect the GDP number to be above 5%, maybe even 6%. If true, the media can’t ignore that. Plus, Bush has not begun to campaign yet. When he does, his ratings should go up as well.

One thing is for sure: the battle between Clark and Dean is for the heart and soul of the Democratic party. It will decide, once and for all, whether the Clintons maintain their control of the party, or they fade into the sunset. It may also decide whether Hillary runs for president. Not surprisingly, most Republicans are quietly pulling for Dean.

All the best,
Gary D. Halbert

Jolie Rouge · 09-01-2004, 12:50 AM

Sources: Democratic leaders urge Kerry campaign changes
Campaign refutes reports of shake-up
Tuesday, August 31, 2004 Posted: 6:19 PM EDT (2219 GMT)

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/...ign/index.html

NEW YORK (CNN) -- Democratic leaders, increasingly concerned that John Kerry's presidential campaign is adrift, are urging the presidential nominee to make changes in his staff before Labor Day, according to some party sources.

If not, said one party strategist, "it could be too late." Sources say major changes could come at the campaign's highest level.

The concern, according to these sources, is that Kerry has failed to effectively respond to attacks from Republicans and criticism of his military service in Vietnam, particular ads from a group calling itself Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.

Several campaign sources dismissed talk of a "major" shake-up. But these sources acknowledge there will be some changes in the coming days and some "evolving roles" at the campaign's senior level.

"We don't have a Carville or a Begala," said a senior Kerry official, referring to Democratic strategists James Carville and Paul Begala, who masterminded Bill Clinton's successful 1992 campaign. "We can't mimic what happened in 1992."

The worry voiced by some Democrats comes as Republicans meet in New York for their nominating convention.

Much of the Democrats' criticism -- which is coming from donors, top strategists and elected officials -- was directed at Mary Beth Cahill, who was hired to run Kerry's campaign after the senator fired campaign manager Jim Jordan in late 2003. Democrats are also urging the candidate to overhaul his media strategy, led by communications director Stephanie Cutter.

There's no indication that Kerry will fire Cahill or Cutter, or change their titles. Cahill has spent the past several days with Kerry at his home in Nantucket, and she also met with the candidate at a private home Monday for 90 minutes. Kerry met with her again, along with his finance chairman, Louis Susman, on Tuesday morning.

But sources say Kerry could bring in other top advisers who would have more authority over strategy and day-to-day operations. Two people who could fill those roles are Joe Lockhart, a Democratic consultant and former Clinton press secretary, who was brought into the campaign last week as a senior communications adviser; and John Sasso, who is currently the Kerry campaign's liaison to the Democratic National Committee.

Lockhart said he was unaware of any major changes.

"The campaign has a strong team in place, and a strategy to win this election," he said.

Cutter was even more blunt. "That's not going to happen," she said. "This is nothing new. Mary Beth is still campaign manager and will continue to be."

Lockhart was traveling Tuesday to meet with Kerry in Nantucket, Massachusetts, and then fly to Nashville, Tennessee, with the senator later in the day.

While he originally had planned to maintain a low-key schedule during the Republican National Convention, Kerry now is expected to hold a small rally in Nashville on Tuesday evening. He's scheduled to address members of the American Legion on Wednesday at their national convention.

On Thursday, he's also stopping off in Boston, Massachusetts, for more private meetings with top staff before he joins his vice-presidential pick John Edwards for a midnight rally in Ohio.

When asked if there is going to be any announcement about staff changes, Cutter replied, "Not to my knowledge. And if there is, it does not mean any shake-up."

Cutter pointed to the addition of Lockhart and Joel Johnson earlier this month as evidence that the campaign is "beefing up." Cutter said that adding people during the home-stretch of the campaign is commonplace.

At the same time, however, top campaign officials acknowledge that major problems have arisen since Kerry accepted his party's nomination in Boston last month. The swift boat ads have done serious damage, reflected in both polls and fund raising, and aides have complained of a lack of overall strategy.

A senior campaign source said "this will pass" and that there is an effort to "quell" the concerns being raised by some fund-raisers in New York and California. The campaign is sharing "data" with those parties complaining about problems and laying out the plan for where the campaign goes from here.

Sen. Ted Kennedy has been calling Democrats over the past several days to discuss their concerns about the campaign's message, according to one source.

When Lockhart came on board, the expectation was that he would travel with Kerry. Now, the decision has been made to leave him at headquarters overseeing what one senior campaign official called "a sometimes confused and short-sighted" communications strategy.

Cutter, recently taken off the road to return to campaign headquarters, likely will return to her role as traveling press secretary, sources said, although some campaign officials and advisers are exploring other options.

Johnson and another former Clinton adviser, Doug Sosnik, also have taken on major roles in recent weeks. Johnson directs a "rapid response" operation and works closely with Lockhart, while Sosnik works on broader strategic issues.

There was talk of putting Sosnik on the road with Kerry. Several campaign officials and advisers say they recognize the need to have an "adult" traveling with the candidate -- as one put it, "someone who can tell him to shut up, or change something if and when that is necessary" and quickly deal with other strategic issues from the road.

"The 'sky is falling' people are out of line, but we do need to fix some things," said one senior campaign official.

But Sosnik's wife recently had a baby and the plans envision him working at headquarters and perhaps traveling in the campaign's final weeks. So they are still exploring options for a traveling senior staffer. Johnson is an option because of his longtime experience in the Senate, but Lockhart is among those who prefer him where he is, according to several sources.

Some of this buzz may have been fueled yesterday when Democratic pollster Stan Greenberg said he was stepping down from working for a 527. Some viewed it as a step toward joining the campaign. Several inside and adviser sources, however, say they know of no such plan.

CNN's Candy Crowley, John King, Deirdre Walsh, Judy Woodruff and John Mercurio contributed to this report

Jolie Rouge · 09-07-2004, 01:28 AM

Top Ten Signs Hillary Clinton Wants To Be Vice President

10. The Washington, D.C. TJ Maxx has sold out of pantsuits.

9. She's practicing sitting around doing nothing.

8. Instead of pretending to be from New York, she's pretending to be from key battleground states Ohio, Florida and Michigan.

7. Bragged to reporters the next "Hillary-Gate" is going to be off the hizzook.

6. Says she wants to be the first female Vice President since Gore.

5. Just purchased a large amount of Halliburton stock.

4. Called Century 21 to ask about listings for undisclosed locations.

3. Well, there's the "Kerry/Clinton" tattoo.

2. Firing up the ol' paper shredder.

1. If it would help she'd have sex with Bill.

http://www.cbs.com/latenight/latesho...20040305.shtml

andreame70 · 09-07-2004, 08:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jolie Rouge

Top Ten Signs Hillary Clinton Wants To Be Vice President

7. Bragged to reporters the next "Hillary-Gate" is going to be off the hizzook.

Ohh that is so funny!
Interesting read Joile, TY

Andrea

kvmj · 09-07-2004, 11:30 AM

I don't think this country is ready to make a woman vice-president, much less president. We are not open to change.

wndysfrnd · 09-07-2004, 02:01 PM

Jolie Rouge · 09-20-2004, 01:11 AM

Is Kerry moving left?
Robert Novak
Sept. 17, 2004

WASHINGTON -- To the astonishment and dismay of Democratic politicians, John Kerry over the last weekend appeared to have forgotten his opponent for president. He did not seem to realize that he was running against George W. Bush, not Howard Dean. That was an understandable conclusion to be drawn from the Democratic nominee's course over four days.

Last Friday, Sen. Kerry abruptly returned to the safely buried gun control issue by decrying President Bush for permitting the assault weapons ban to end. On Saturday, he addressed the Congressional Black Caucus with a liberal harangue. On Sunday, Kerry rested. On Monday, Kerry was back boosting gun control, scolding Bush for letting the assault weapons ban expire at midnight.

Only two explanations are possible, and neither is reassuring to worried Democrats. Kerry could be making a conscious, though counterproductive, decision to reassure his liberal base. Or, he could be trapped by the calendar
of events -- talking gun control because a deadline had been reached and talking civil rights because the Black Caucus invited him. Democratic strategists are particularly concerned by the latter explanation, suggesting a mindless campaign.

The anxiety created by Kerry's return to gun control is concealed by the facade of serenity among Democrats. Their actual concern was exposed by Democratic activist Paul Begala, who has been assailed for advising the Kerry
campaign while appearing as my co-host on CNN's "Crossfire." He said on Monday's program: "Anyone who's worried that I'm secretly running the Kerry campaign can rest easy . . . As an avid hunter and gun owner myself, I think Kerry's move is a political mistake, because Republicans are now going to try to scare hunters."

Kerry's emphasis on gun control contradicted not only Begala but also Begala's former boss, Bill Clinton. In his memoir, President Clinton names gun control as a principal cause of the 1994 Democratic election debacle. He asserts that "the Brady Bill (for screening of gun purchasers) and the assault weapons ban inflamed the Republican base voters and increased their turnout."

A consensus of Democratic leaders believes that in 2000, gun control delivered West Virginia -- and with it, the presidency -- to George W. Bush. That view is not limited to Clintonite self-styled centrists but extends to champions of the Democratic left. Last December, when former Vermont Gov. Dean was riding high for the presidential nomination, he declared: "I am tired of coming to the South and fighting elections on guns, God and gays."

Kerry advisers have recognized what Clinton and Dean were saying. That's why the aloof New England aristocrat emerged this year as a gun-toting outdoorsman. Anybody dedicated to keeping guns from their fellow Americans is not going to vote for Bush. Some officials of the National Rifle Association have told me that their membership is not entirely happy with the Bush administration, raising the prospect of defections to Kerry.

Beyond the gun issue, nobody thinks Kerry's problem is lack of support from the left. Yet, his Black Caucus speech touched all the liberal bases and then played the race card. He quoted W.E.B. DuBois, the black leader who ended his career by joining the Communist Party and going into exile, calling African-Americans "a nation within a nation." Reinforcing DuBois, Kerry pledged "to end the division between the fortunate America and the forgotten America."

One well-placed Democratic partisan telephoned Kerry campaign headquarters to ask why in the world the campaign was moving left at this critical point. He was told that they were not taking such an illogical step and that he should wait and see as the campaign unfolds.

That appraisal seems honest, but it is not reassuring to sophisticated Democrats. If John Kerry's course last weekend was determined by events that happened to be on the calendar, he has no victory plan. George W. Bush's potential weakness seems to be starting a conflict in Iraq that has cost the lives of over 1,000 U.S. troops and shows no sign of abating. It is not easy for a Democrat to exploit that issue, but raising the peril of terrorists buying assault weapons at gun shows in rural America is not a good start.

Jolie Rouge · 09-27-2004, 01:08 AM

Bush questions Kerry's credibility
Friday, September 24, 2004 Posted: 5:30 PM EDT

JANESVILLE, Wisconsin (AP) -- Democrat John Kerry wrongly questioned the credibility of the interim Iraqi leader, and "you can't lead this country" while undercutting an ally, President Bush said Friday.

Bush and interim Iraqi prime minister Ayad Allawi had hopeful words for the future of Iraq a day earlier, which Kerry characterized as putting the "best face" on a Bush administration policy in Iraq that has gone wrong. "This brave man came to our country to talk about how he's risking his life for a free Iraq, which helps America," Bush said at a campaign event in battleground Wisconsin. "And Senator Kerry held a press conference and questioned Mr. Allawi's credibility. You can't lead this country if your ally in Iraq feels like you question his credibility."

Phil Singer, a spokesman for the Democratic nominee, said the president is trying to change the subject. "George Bush has failed to be up front with the American people about what's going on in Iraq, offering fantasyland descriptions of the situation on the ground," he said. "Facts can be stubborn things and when there's a gap between the reality and the words coming out of the White House, we are going to point them out."

For the second day in a row, Vice President Cheney also criticized Kerry for his remarks on Allawi. "I must say I was appalled at the complete lack of respect Senator Kerry showed for this man of courage," Cheney said at an event Friday morning in Lafayette, Louisiana. "Ayad Allawi is our ally. He stands beside us in the war against terror. John Kerry is trying to tear him down and to trash all the good that has been accomplished, and his words are destructive."

In his remarks Thursday, Kerry said Allawi's optimistic assessment of postwar Iraq was contradicted by his own past statements as well as the reality on the ground. "I think the prime minister is obviously contradicting his own statement of a few days ago, where he said the terrorists are pouring into the country," Kerry said. "The prime minister and the president are here obviously to put their best face on the policy, but the fact is that the CIA estimates, the reporting, the ground operations and the troops all tell a different story."

Bush was also campaigning Friday in Racine. By evening, Bush was to be at his Crawford, Texas, ranch for a weekend of cramming for next Thursday's debate with Kerry, the first of the presidential campaign.

The last Republican presidential candidate to win Wisconsin was Ronald Reagan in 1984. But the traditionally Democratic state has grown more Republican in recent years. Democrat Al Gore won it four years ago, but only by 5,708 votes. That has both campaigns aggressively pursuing the state's 10 electoral votes. Bush's Friday stop was his 16th in the state. An ABC News poll taken last week showed Bush leading Kerry by 10 percentage points in Wisconsin.

Kerry has made eight stops in Wisconsin, and he plans to camp out at a Wisconsin resort next week to prepare for the debate. Mike Sheridan, president of the United Auto Workers local in Janesville, said union members would use Friday's visit to show their support for Kerry. "I think it will fire up anti-Bush sentiment even more," Sheridan told the Janesville Gazette.

In Janesville, Bush was met by about 250 protesters waving signs that said "Like father, like son. One term" and "We need good jobs now" and "Show us the jobs."

Wisconsin is one of the few battleground states that has gained jobs since Bush took office. The unemployment rate is up nearly a percentage point, but Labor Department records show a gain of 200 jobs since January 2001.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/....ap/index.html