PDA

View Full Version : A Clark/hillary Ticket In 2004?



Jolie Rouge
09-23-2003, 09:28 PM
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
09-23-2003, 09:31 PM
{{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
09-23-2003, 09:35 PM
{{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
09-23-2003, 09:42 PM
{{Page Four}}


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


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
08-31-2004, 08:50 PM
Sources: Democratic leaders urge Kerry campaign changes
Campaign refutes reports of shake-up
Tuesday, August 31, 2004 Posted: 6:19 PM EDT (2219 GMT)

www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/08/31/kerry.campaign/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
09-06-2004, 09:28 PM
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/lateshow/top_ten/archive/ls_topten_archive2004/ls_topten_archive_20040305.shtml

andreame70
09-07-2004, 04:41 AM
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, 07:30 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, 10:01 AM
:rolleyes:

Jolie Rouge
09-19-2004, 09:11 PM
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
09-26-2004, 09:08 PM
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/09/24/bush.fri.ap/index.html

Jolie Rouge
09-29-2004, 01:31 PM
Dems not counting on Kerry coattails
[i]Party hoping to regain control of Senate
Wednesday, September 29, 2004 Posted: 12:40 PM EDT (1640 GMT) [/b]



http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2004/ALLPOLITICS/09/29/senate.stakes.ap/story.daschle.thune.ap.jpg
Sen. Tom Daschle, right, debates former Rep. Jim Thune September 19 on NBC's "Meet the Press."


WASHINGTON (AP) -- Senate Democratic leader Tom Daschle hugged President Bush from one end of South Dakota to the other this summer. In his own campaign commercials.

The brief embrace might seem an odd claim on re-election for the man Republicans depict as obstructionist-in-chief for the president's congressional agenda. But Daschle is one of several candidates with a common political problem as Democrats nurse fragile hopes of gaining Senate control this fall.

From the South to South Dakota and Alaska, they are running in areas where Bush is popular -- and Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry not so much.

"The congressman is running his own race out here. ... He's not bringing any national people in," said Kristofer Eisenla, spokesman for Democratic Rep. Brad Carson in Oklahoma, where Bush won 60 percent of the vote in 2000.

"The presidential race is largely separate" from Inez Tenenbaum's campaign in South Carolina, said Adam Kovacevich, a spokesman for the Democratic candidate in another state Kerry has written off.

Of the eight states with the most competitive Senate races, Kerry is seriously contesting only Florida and Colorado, effectively conceding North Carolina, South Carolina, Louisiana, Oklahoma, South Dakota and Alaska.

Democrats and Republicans differ on the significance of the location of the key races. With five weeks remaining in the campaign, GOP candidates are struggling in Oklahoma, Alaska and other states where Bush will triumph easily. "It's pretty irrelevant assuming that the Democratic candidate and the Democratic Party can get the turnout operations put together without presidential or national party funding," said Jim Jordan, former executive director of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee.

So far, the DSCC has transferred millions of dollars to state parties for get-out-the-vote operations -- $1.7 million for Alaska, $1.4 million for Oklahoma and $825,000 for South Carolina. "I think it's just an added factor to the benefit of our top-quality candidates," countered Sen. George Allen, who heads the National Republican Senatorial Committee.

Already, Allen's committee is trying to turn Kerry into a liability for one Democratic candidate. "Flip flop, flop flop. Between John Kerry and Tony Knowles, there's more flip-flopping than a sockeye (salmon) in Bristol Bay," says an NRSC ad criticizing Alaska's former Democratic governor.

Democrats must gain two seats to be assured of a 51-vote majority in the Senate. The parties are virtually certain to swap two of the 34 seats on the ballot -- Democrats winning an open seat in Illinois while Republicans counter in Georgia, one of five Southern states where Democratic veterans are retiring.

Of the eight seats that remain most competitive, five are in Democratic hands and three belong to Republicans, and Democrats must win seven to gain an outright majority.

South Dakota holds the marquee Senate race of the campaign, and polls show a close race between Daschle and former GOP Rep. John Thune in a state that Bush carried by 22 percentage points in 2000.

The hug -- two or three seconds in length -- is a videotaped image of the embrace Daschle gave Bush when the president spoke to Congress shortly after the terrorist attacks of September 11.

Daschle's spokesman, Dan Pfeiffer, said the ad's message is that he "will work with the president when the president is right but oppose him when he is wrong." Daschle's latest commercial criticizes the administration for failing to provide adequate drought relief, while faulting Thune for not standing up to Bush on the issue.

The Republican Party demanded unsuccessfully that Daschle stop airing the ad, arguing it left a false impression.

Thune's campaign manager, Dick Wadhams, says Daschle "is running from the arms of Michael Moore to the arms of George Bush," referring to the liberal filmmaker whose name was heartily booed at the Republican National Convention.


Political fortunes have ebbed and flowed for both parties in the past several weeks:


Democratic chances of winning a seat in Pennsylvania faded when GOP Sen. Arlen Specter survived a primary challenge from a conservative, then won the endorsement of the state AFL-CIO.


Democratic hopes of a serious challenge to Sen. Kit Bond in Missouri, never strong, became a casualty of Kerry's decision to halt advertising in the state.


The Republican senatorial committee reported $22.5 million cash on hand as of the end of August, compared with the Democrats' $10.5 million. Hoping to use its advantage, the GOP signaled plans to spend more than $1 million in a late bid to upset Wisconsin Sen. Russell Feingold.


To the relief of GOP strategists, former HUD Secretary Mel Martinez, who is Cuban-born, won the nomination for an open seat in the presidential battleground of Florida. He will test Betty Castor in a race slow to develop in a hurricane-battered state.

Yet Republicans have concerns of their own.

Tom Coburn, an obstetrician and former GOP House member, faces unexpected scrutiny following his acknowledgment that he sterilized patients several years ago without written consent.


Sen. Lisa Murkowski, appointed to her seat by her father, Gov. Frank Murkowski, has been struggling against nepotism charges as well as against Knowles.


Polls show GOP candidates Pete Coors in Colorado and Rep. Richard Burr in North Carolina trailing. They also indicate that Tenenbaum, who fell behind Rep. Jim DeMint this summer and reshuffled her campaign, has begun cutting into his lead with criticism of his call for a national sales tax to replace the income tax.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/09/29/senate.stakes.ap/index.html

Jolie Rouge
09-30-2004, 09:16 PM
Democratic distractions
Friday, September 24, 2004 Posted: 7:37 PM EDT (2337 GMT)

WASHINGTON (Creators Syndicate) -- High-level Democrats, including some inside the Kerry campaign, were appalled by this week's political sideshow.

Just as John Kerry began finding his voice on Iraq, he was in danger of being drowned out by Democratic operatives Joe Lockhart and Terry McAuliffe. But the Democratic presidential candidate had only himself to blame.

Democratic critics can hardly comprehend that Lockhart, President Bill Clinton's spokesman who was recently taken aboard the campaign by Sen. Kerry, telephoned a notorious Bush-bashing eccentric who was CBS's source of the discredited documents.

They also are unhappy that McAuliffe, the Clinton-selected Democratic National Committee (DNC) chairman who supposedly was eclipsed when Kerry clinched the nomination, has launched an advertising campaign attacking President Bush's National Guard record.

The complaints are not limited to specific cases. One party activist with a nationally familiar name calls Lockhart and McAuliffe "attack dogs" who go beyond the facts and get Sen. Kerry off message.

But the nominee brought Lockhart into the campaign and could, with a single telephone call, suppress McAuliffe's Bush-bashing. This is Kerry's campaign, and he is responsible for these distractions from his new focus on Iraq.

It is hard to believe that so experienced a political operative as Lockhart followed a CBS producer's suggestion to telephone retired National Guardsman Bill Burkett, whose claims of evidence to destroy Bush were rejected by Al Gore's campaign in 2000. (Both Lockhart and Burkett say the documents were not even discussed during their brief conversation.)

Lockhart was added to the Kerry campaign team because he is renowned as a smart political insider who knows everything. Anyone vaguely familiar with politicians was aware of Burkett's unstable background, but Lockhart told CNN interviewer Bill Hemmer Tuesday: "I didn't know who the guy was."

When Hemmer pressed Lockhart about the propriety of calling Burkett, the Kerry spokesman tried to change the subject. He contended that Bush White House spokesman Scott McClellan "has held two White House briefings in the last two months" -- an accusation he elaborated and repeated.

However many briefings actually were held within the confines of the White House, Bush's staff has conducted 37 question-and-answer sessions with White House reporters since the beginning of August.

When Kerry clinched the presidential nomination, nobody expected Lockhart to be setting the tone for the senator's general election campaign. Even more unexpected is McAuliffe running an independent TV campaign.

A much criticized Washington wheeler-dealer, McAuliffe was imposed as chairman by Bill and Hillary Clinton on reluctant DNC members after the 2000 election. In March, Kerry staffers whispered that McAuliffe probably would not complete the year in the chairmanship and certainly would not be speaking out any longer.

They were wrong on both counts. McAuliffe not only stayed at the DNC but has been one of the party's most visible talkers. His implication that Bush senior adviser Karl Rove gave the disputed documents to CBS provided the distinctive McAuliffe touch.

Shortly after "60 Minutes" used questionable documents in assailing the Bush service, McAuliffe and the DNC put out a TV ad ("Fortunate Son") repeating the gist of the CBS program. The Kerry campaign was alerted in advance to these ads.

The National Guard question distracts the public from tuning in to Kerry's concentration on Iraq as the one issue capable of erasing Bush's lead. Kerry's speech Monday at New York University was stylistically the campaign's best, though his four-point program sounded Bush-like and left his excited partisan audience on a downer.

Even without self-imposed distractions, Iraq does not offer an easy path into the Oval Office. The president's strategists were delighted that Kerry said "we have traded a dictator for a chaos that has left America less secure" -- suggesting the U.S. is worse off with Saddam Hussein out of power.

It is probably too late for Kerry to change his stance by promising early troop withdrawal -- a step risking all on one roll of the dice.

Nevertheless, it is difficult to exaggerate the Democratic dismay over Lockhart and McAuliffe. In talking to a variety of Democrats who seldom agree with each other, I was surprised by the unanimous concern over the distractions. John Kerry might be advised to bring order to his own campaign as he tries to pin the torment of Iraq on George W. Bush.


http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/09/24/democrats/index.html

Jolie Rouge
10-04-2004, 02:25 PM
Could election lightning strike twice in Florida?
Democrats say they find problems, little progress since 2000
By Greg Botelho CNN
Monday, October 4, 2004 Posted: 12:28 PM EDT (1628 GMT)


WEST PALM BEACH, Florida (CNN) -- Despite intensive public scrutiny and extensive reforms, Democratic criticisms heard in 2000 are echoing again in Florida, setting up another possibly bitter election, and perhaps another post-election battle.

Democrats have decried ineffective voting machines, discrimination against African-American voters and boosting Ralph Nader as a way of hurting Democrats -- all stemming from, they say, Republicans' attempts to manipulate elections in their favor.

"I think a lot has changed since 2000, and it's changed for the worse," said Scott Maddox, chair of the Florida Democratic Party. "The bottom line: We can't let it be close, because if they can cheat, they will."

Republicans, who control Florida's governor and secretary of state offices (as they did in 2000), call such accusations groundless and foresee a fair, well-run election November 2.

"There are a lot of people here who know how to run an election properly," said Mindy Tucker Fletcher, a senior adviser to Florida's Republican Party. "But you only hear about the negatives."

Four years ago, the Sunshine State was ground zero for political and legal wrangling in a historic election dispute. The showdown ended with a Supreme Court ruling halting ballot recounts, giving George W. Bush a state win by 537 votes and a 271-267 Electoral College majority.

With two more electoral votes, 27, Florida arguably carries even more importance this year than in 2000.

But political experts warn against reading too much into the again sharp political rhetoric, or expecting a repeat of the razor-close, controversy-ridden 2000 election. "Every state was decisive in 2000, so let's not just focus on Florida," said Stephen Craig, a University of Florida political sciences professor. "Let's not assume that Florida is the end of the rainbow."

Focus on Florida

The 2000 election in Florida introduced terms like "hanging chads" and "butterfly ballot" into the American vernacular, and introduced the world to Palm Beach County.

County election officials voided 19,120 ballots because they were double-punched, while conservative candidate Pat Buchanan scored a surprisingly high 3,000 votes in the heavily Democratic area -- all, Democrats said, because of a confusing ballot design.

A Palm Beach Post survey of ballots concluded that, if voters' true intentions were taken into account, Democratic candidate Al Gore would have won Florida, and become the nation's 43rd president. Top Republicans dismissed the report, saying it was impossible to accurately identify voter intentions based only on discarded, improperly filled out ballots.

Palm Beach County -- and the rest of Florida -- has undergone extensive election reform in the last four years. Chief among them, state officials decertified punch-card machines that left votes hanging in 2000, using optical scan or touch-screen voting machines instead.

"Since the 2000 election, Florida has led the nation in election reform," said Jenny Nash, press secretary for Secretary of State Glenda Hood. "We have one of the most rigorous [voter machine] certification processes in the nation."

Elections officials have also stepped up voter education efforts. "They teach you, step by step," said Katherine Madigan, commending such efforts in Palm Beach County. "They're talking about how to do it, they even give you a fake ballot."

Theresa LePore, Palm Beach County's supervisor of elections, says she realizes there will always be critics, just as there will always be errors, simply because humans are involved. "Our staff knows we're being held to a much higher standard, and we're doing everything we can to make sure that nothing happens," said LePore, designer of the "butterfly ballot." "But we're human, sometimes mistakes are made."

Dems: GOP manipulating elections

Leading Democrats express doubts a fair presidential election can be held in Florida, given the actions of Republicans in power. "A repetition of the problems of 2000 now seems likely," said former President Jimmy Carter in a Washington Post guest editorial. "Some of the state's leading officials hold strong political biases that prevent necessary reforms."

"With reforms unlikely at this late stage of the election, perhaps the only recourse will be to focus maximum public scrutiny on the suspicious process in Florida."

Maddox, the state Democratic Party chair, in sentiments voiced by Carter and other Democrats, cites several examples of what he calls the GOP's "blatant partisanship to use the Elections Division to their advantage."

Republicans, he says, engineered a so-called "felons' list" that tried to disqualify 22,000 African-Americans (likely Democrats) and only 61 Hispanics (likely Republicans). He also accuses Republicans of touting new voting machines' precision while encouraging their supporters to vote absentee. GOP voters and lawyers, he adds, have supported Nader (in his successful quest to get on Florida's ballot) in a bid to take votes away from John Kerry.

"Florida voting officials have proved to be highly partisan, brazenly violating a basic need for an unbiased and universally trusted authority to manage all elements of the electoral process," wrote Carter. "[Gov.] Jeb Bush, naturally a strong supporter of his brother, has taken no steps to correct these departures from principles of fair and equal treatment."

Florida election officials strongly refute such claims, pointing to reforms aimed at making elections just, simple and truly democratic. Hundreds of "successful" elections have been held across the state since 2000, said Nash, Hood's press secretary.

Secretary Hood has conducted her job in a nonpartisan manner," said Nash, rebutting allegations that Republican Party political aims guide Hood's actions. "We expect people will be watching Florida very closely, and we're very proud of what we've done."

As to Carter's claims, Nash said, "We were disappointed because former President Carter did not contact Secretary Hood to get updated and accurate information." Nash invited him to meet Hood in Tallahassee, Florida, to hear about "the progress that has been made."

"What will be our downfall is the elected officials who keep looking for problems," said LePore of the intense scrutiny. "Every little mistake is blown out of proportion. ... Good thing my hair is blond, so you can't see the gray."

Turnout seen as key

So could election lightning strike twice in Florida? Neither party is taking any chances.

Republicans have stepped up their voter registration efforts considerably, their volunteer base rising from 20,000 in 2000 to 70,000 this year, according to Fletcher.

Maddox likewise touted the Democrats' grassroots efforts and promised a strong turnout.

A New York Times analysis gave Democrats an edge: New voter registrations in highly Democratic areas rose 60 percent between January 1 and July 31, 2004 (compared to the same period in 2000), with a 12 percent jump in heavily Republican areas.

While Democrats contend the 2000 elections energized their ranks, that sentiment did not play out in the 2002 gubernatorial election -- in which, after polls predicted an even race, Jeb Bush decisively defeated Democratic challenger Bill McBride. "Democrats realized the importance of mobilization [after 2000]," said Craig. "But they did not do the grassroots that might have made the difference in 2002. We'll see whether or not they learn from that."

Statistically, a second straight presidential election in Florida decided by a few hundred votes is highly unlikely. But problems still exist, said Craig, meaning elections officials have plenty of work to do through November 2. "We're not to the point where everybody who wants to vote can vote, and everyone who can vote has their vote properly conducted," said Craig. "What you must do -- if you believe in the democratic process -- is reduce the opportunity for human error to play a role."



www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/10/04/election.florida/index.html



Elections officials have also stepped up voter education efforts. "They teach you, step by step," said Katherine Madigan, commending such efforts in Palm Beach County. "They're talking about how to do it, they even give you a fake ballot."

If GOP tried to do the same the Dems would be screaming about "vote tampering" :rolleyes:

Jolie Rouge
10-06-2004, 01:50 PM
Kerry Disagrees With Wife on Bin Laden
By NEDRA PICKLER ASSOCIATED PRESS
October 05, 2004

http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/s.../100503990.html

TIPTON, Iowa (AP) - John Kerry often says he loves that his wife, Teresa Heinz Kerry, speaks her mind. But that doesn't mean he always agrees with her. And on Tuesday he said he didn't.

Kerry told reporters he disagreed with his wife's assessment that the possible U.S. capture of al-Qaida terrorist leader Osama bin Laden before the Nov. 2 election could be politically motivated.

He momentarily confused the man blamed for the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks with deposed Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein, saying: "I have said again and again that even if Saddam Hussein is captured or killed in the next instant, it won't change my view about how I can run a more effective war on terror or how I can make America safer."

Correcting himself, Kerry said: "Osama bin Laden should have been the complete focus of our effort in the war on terror." He said his wife was "cautioning people against the possibility" that a capture could be politically motivated, not saying it would be. Heinz Kerry predicted at a recent fund-raiser that bin Laden will be captured just before the election.

Though the election is a month away, Kerry's campaign has started raising money to prepare for a recount - telling prospective donors it doesn't want to be "outgunned" like Democrat Al Gore's campaign was in 2000.

The Federal Election Commission last week told the Kerry-Edwards campaign it could use its legal compliance fund to cover any recount costs. The FEC was responding to a request by the campaign for guidance on whether it could use the fund, which is financed with limited donations from individuals.

"Right now I need all of you to join me and make a pledge: The mistakes of the 2000 election will NEVER be repeated again," Kerry campaign manager Mary Beth Cahill wrote Monday in a fund-raising e-mail. "The day after the election, as the recount began, Al Gore's campaign was already outgunned, outmanned and outmatched - we learned one lesson: be prepared."

The FEC has not yet said whether Kerry and President Bush can raise unlimited individual donations to cover recount costs, as the 2000 candidates could. During the Florida ballot dispute, Bush voluntarily limited his donations to $5,000 each and raised nearly $14 million; Gore accepted unlimited checks and spent about $3.2 million on the recount.

---

Associated Press writer Sharon Theimer in Washington contributed to this report.

Jolie Rouge
11-01-2004, 10:15 PM
WHAT CLINTON DOESN'T SAY

Tue Oct 26, 3:08 AM ET Op/Ed - New York Post



Bill Clinton left his sickbed yesterday to stump for Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry. His return to the campaign trail — six weeks after quadruple-bypass heart surgery — drew inevitable comparisons to injured Boston Red Sox pitcher Curt Schilling.

Not surprisingly, Clinton campaigned like the loyal and partisan Democrat that he's always been. But it's significant that in his remarks yesterday, the former president stuck almost exclusively to domestic issues.


Doubtless there's a good reason for that.


John Kerry has blasted Operation Iraqi Freedom as "the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time."


Does Bill Clinton agree with that?


There's nothing on the record to suggest that he does.


Indeed, Clinton to date has never taken issue with President Bush's decision to topple Saddam Hussein's regime. On the contrary — from the start, he has been unequivocally supportive of the need to finally make Saddam comply with international sanctions or face the consequences.


Just days after Bush's now-controversial State of the Union Address in 2003, Clinton declared: "After what happened on 9/11, the will of the international community has stiffened, as represented by this last U.N. resolution, which said clearly that the penalty for noncompliance is no longer sanctions."


What's that?


A link between the events of 9/11 and the need to confront Saddam Hussein?


Coming from Bill Clinton, yet?


Moreover, he said: "People can quarrel with whether we should have more troops in Afghanistan (news - web sites) or internationalize Iraq (news - web sites) or whatever, but it is incontestable that on the day I left office, there were unaccounted for stocks of biological and chemical weapons."


In fact, as recently as four months ago, Clinton noted: "I have repeatedly defended President Bush against the left on Iraq."


Of course, there was a time when John Kerry used to agree with that, too.


Like back in 1998, when Clinton sent a bombing strike against Iraq in an effort to force compliance with U.N. weapons inspectors.


"Saddam Hussein's objective is to maintain a program of weapons of mass destruction," warned Kerry back then.


"It is important to hold him accountable by force. No one will question that it is Mr. Hussein who has precipitated this confrontation — and no one else."





Yes, you read correctly: "It is important to hold him accountable by force."

Kerry even felt that way when President Bush asked for the authority to use the same kind of force against Saddam. That's why he voted "aye."

But that was before the antiwar crowd took effective control of the Democratic Party. Suddenly, Kerry was busy parsing words, explaining that he'd only supported the "authorization" to use force — not its actual use.

Naturally, Bill Clinton is too staunch a Democrat to point out to his audiences that John Kerry is all wrong on the war. But the fact remains that when it comes to Iraq, Bill Clinton is miles closer to the Republican president than he is to his own candidate.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=106&ncid=742&e=1&u=/nypos t/20041026/cm_nypost/whatclintondoesntsay

Jolie Rouge
11-05-2004, 10:46 PM
Edwards Positions Himself for 2008
By LIZ SIDOTI

WASHINGTON (AP) - Democrat John Edwards lost the election for the vice presidency this week and will lose his Senate seat in January. But he's hardly going away. He's positioned himself for a full-out presidential run in 2008, a campaign that in a way he's already begun.

For now, though, politics is on hold. His wife, Elizabeth, was diagnosed with breast cancer this week just after Democrat John Kerry and running mate Edwards conceded the race to President Bush. ``Together, our family will beat this,'' Edwards said on Thursday in a statement that made clear her treatment would be the focus of his immediate future.

Longer range, the North Carolina senator with the good looks, Southern charm, rags-to-riches biography and ``tomorrow can be better than today'' pitch is in the top rank of candidates expected to compete for the White House in four years.

That's despite his liabilities: He's leaving the Senate after a single term; he has little foreign policy experience; he couldn't deliver his own state or any other in the South for Kerry, despite boasting that ``I will beat George Bush in my backyard.'' But he now has the experience and public exposure of a national campaign.

While Edwards has not announced his intentions, he never has been shy about his presidential aspirations. He introduced Kerry on Wednesday with a speech that could be considered the first of the 2008 contest. ``This campaign may end today, but the battle for you and the hardworking Americans who built this country rages on,'' Edwards said. ``At the end of our heartache today resides an eternal hope for the country we're going to fight for and the country we're going to build together.''

Democrats say they expect Edwards to be extremely active in the party, speaking at events, raising money and endearing himself to the rank and file. Campaigning for the nomination years early, in effect.

Another potential 2008 Democratic presidential candidate, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, has a large following and plenty of name recognition, too. And, unlike Edwards, the former first lady also has a job that will keep her in the spotlight.

Edwards will be unemployed in January when he leaves the Senate after just six years and a swift rise in politics. He chose not to run for re-election at the same time he was running for the 2004 Democratic presidential nomination as a long-shot candidate.

Barely a blip in primary polls, Edwards fought to counter a perception that he was little more than a pretty face and a gifted speaker. Then he wound up in second place in Iowa.

Eventually, he lost to Kerry but he won the respect of party officials - and the Massachusetts senator - with his ability to raise money and connect with voters with a message of optimism about achieving the American dream.

After the primary season, Edwards campaigned for the vice presidential nomination by traveling the country talking up Kerry and raising money. Kerry asked his Senate colleague to join the ticket, and he campaigned hard to the end.

His advisers and friends say he hasn't spoken to them about his next political move - or his plans in the meantime other than to help his wife heal. They say he was focused on helping Kerry win the White House and didn't dwell on the ``what if'' during the campaign. For now, Edwards will see out his Senate term and commute between homes in Washington and Raleigh, N.C. No one expects him to return to the courtroom and his previous profession as a trial lawyer.

Those who know him believe Edwards will become involved with a couple of ``worthy causes.'' ``He'll find some things to make his own and throw himself into to make America a better place,'' former North Carolina Gov. Jim Hunt said. ``He's positioned beautifully for the future. He will have the time and all the opportunity. He will have the forum and he can pick his issues.''

And, he can afford to focus entirely on 2008. A multimillionaire who amassed a fortune as a trial lawyer, Edwards doesn't need a job to pay the bills.


Some Democrats say they believe the party will embrace Southerner Edwards as it did Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter, considering Tuesday's losses in the White House and in Congress. The only Democrats in recent years to be president were small-town Southerners.



11/05/04 17:09


http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/news/story.jsp?floc=ne-election-11-l13&flok=FF-APO-1131&idq=/ff/story/0001/20041105/1710865531.htm&sc=1131

Jolie Rouge
11-07-2004, 01:07 PM
So who's waiting in the wings for 2008's show?
By Thom Patterson CNN.com
Saturday, November 6, 2004 Posted: 9:49 PM EST (0249 GMT)

(CNN) -- For President Bush, it's the beginning of the end. The U.S. Constitution limits elected presidents to serving two four-year terms, so the victorious incumbent will take a bow in 2008.

So which Republicans might seek to lead the party ticket in four more years? Obvious overtures would be crass in political society, but a handful of names get regular mention by political observers. And some delegates who attended the Republican convention in New York said they could tell who might be flirting with the idea.

"When you tell people at a convention that you're from New Hampshire, they tend to hold on to your hand a little longer and look into your eyes a little deeper," said six-time Republican National Convention delegate Tom Rath. "But beyond that, there was no overt, 'Are you with me if I go?'"

Delegates wouldn't dare ask, Rath said. "We know how to do this... there's kind of an elegant dance, as they say."

Since the early 1950s, New Hampshire's primary has served as a barometer of how well potential candidates might do among the electorate -- and the fear is that backers might decide to withdraw financial support if a candidate seeking party nomination did not make a strong showing in that state.

Although vice presidents are often an obvious guess, Dick Cheney, who has a heart condition, isn't expected to ask voters to hand him a promotion.

Among the names mentioned as GOP nominee possibilities are Sens. Bill Frist, John McCain, Chuck Hagel, and George Allen; New York Gov. George Pataki; former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, and Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney.

Many of this group met with influential delegates during the GOP convention in September. Frist met with Iowa delegates. Hagel, Pataki, Giuliani, Allen and McCain called on New Hampshire's representatives.

Crystal ball

Rath considers early speculation about presidential contenders "the epitome of stargazing," and tried to minimize the significance of "the dance."

"We're a battleground state," Rath said of New Hampshire. "And as such, we have a lot of very high-profile visits from folks who would be on anybody's list. And in that regard [those] people came and kind of pumped up the delegation and told them how important it was."

McCain sought his party's nomination in 2000. And during this year's Republican convention he drew quite an audience of Granite State delegates. "We had some people in that delegation who were very close to -- and great fans of -- Senator McCain," Rath said. "And they were front and center when he came, and I think that that was totally appropriate after his run four years ago."

GOP strategist Scott Reed, campaign manager for Sen. Bob Dole's 1996 presidential run, said McCain was someone to watch in 2008. "The front-runner in the Republican party will be John McCain, based on his performance at the convention, support for Bush and his polling numbers both nationally and in the early primary states," Reed said. "His favorable rating [in national voter surveys] is at about 70 percent among Republicans, Democrats and independents, which is kind of unique."

Shall we dance?

When you ask the candidates, their moves are classic two-steps -- side steps really. Nothing's "ruled in or out" and they're focusing on current jobs.

A spokeswoman in McCain's office said his only focus this year was securing a fourth term in the Senate. And he snagged a solid win on November 2 with more than 75 percent of Arizonans supporting him.

Romney made several visits to New Hampshire earlier in the year.

"Watch the governor of Massachusetts, very attractive," Reed said. "He's getting very high marks for governing and he's an overnight top-tier candidate in the neighboring state of New Hampshire. Romney is someone to watch, he's gotten way out on the gay marriage issue -- being against it --which helps him with social conservatives, which is the base of the Republican Party."

But Shawn Feddeman, a spokeswoman for Romney, said her boss' focus was "helping President Bush get elected ... and beyond that he anticipates running for re-election in 2006."

Giuliani's popularity after his response to the September 11, 2001, attacks on New York fueled speculation that he might run in 2008. But Reed said the former New York mayor should take a more roundabout route toward the nomination.

"I think he'll get smart and realize that the path to the nomination is to take on [New York Sen.] Hillary [Rodham Clinton] and defeat her in '06," Reed said.

Giuliani's office said he's not thinking about running for president. "He's not ruling anything in, he's not ruling anything out," said spokeswoman Sunny Mindel. "As Mayor Giuliani says all the time ... future will take care of itself."

Lisa Stoll, a spokeswoman for Pataki, said the New York governor has left himself with several options. "He's not ruling out running against Senator Clinton in 2006," she said. And "he has not ruled out running for re-election -- his term expires in 2006."

Allen is focused on serving Virginia, but also hasn't decided for or against a shot at the White House, spokesman John Reid said. The senator is "flattered that a number of people have approached him or mentioned to him that he would be a great candidate one day, down the line."

As for Hagel, spokesman Mike Buttry, said. "Senator Hagel will make decisions at the appropriate time."


http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/11/06/2008.gop/index.html

Jolie Rouge
01-31-2005, 10:39 PM
STEP BY STEP, HILLARY IS MAKING HER MOVE
Sun Jan 30, 2005
By John Leo

Hillary Clinton is likely to be the 2008 Democratic presidential nominee because she is so much smarter than her rivals now on the horizon. Once in the Senate, she made a beeline for the Armed Services Committee because she understood that the first female president will have to be a hawk, just as the first Catholic president (JFK) had to be adamant about not aiding Catholic schools, and the first Jewish president will have to voice doubts about Israel.


When she ran against young Rick Lazio for the Senate, my wife and I had dinner one night with four other couples. The four other women, all liberal Democrats, were bitterly and almost violently anti-Hillary, mostly because they thought she had served as the enabler for Bill Clinton's self-destruction. But all the women at the table wound up voting for her, partly because Lazio was a poor choice, mostly because Hillary ran such a strong campaign.


She startled a lot of analysts by running so well upstate, an area New York City residents know nothing about and like to refer to as "apple-knocker country." This part of the state is traditionally Republican and reliably hostile to urban liberals. Hillary Clinton nearly carried it, losing to Lazio by only 47 percent to 50 percent upstate. People tell me she knows more, and responds better, to upstate New York and its problems than any other statewide politician ever has. Imagine this capacity projected onto anti-liberal "apple-knockers" nationwide.


Suddenly Clinton seems to be on the move, laying the groundwork for a centrist campaign in 2008. She has come out in favor of immigration reform, in effect, saying: Close the borders. She has demanded a role for religion and faith-based programs in the public square. And last week, while clearly underlining her pro-choice position, she expressed many sentiments firmly held by the anti-abortion movement. She called abortion a "sad, even tragic choice to many, many women," called for pro-choicers and pro-lifers to work together to reduce the number of abortions, and praised the influence of religious and moral values in delaying teenaged girls from becoming sexually active. Imagine, an important Democrat saying a good word for abstinence.


On all three of these issues, Clinton is bucking the Democratic elites and the base of her party, less so on abortion than on immigration and the public expression of religion. She is also answering the big question currently bothering Democratic head-scratchers: What do we have to do to win nationwide elections? Hillary's sensible answer seems to be: Stop trying to overcome and stigmatize huge majorities of voters.


The number of Americans who want to seal our borders is in the 70 percent range. So is opposition to the anything-goes abortion regime introduced by Roe v. Wade. Three-quarters of Americans believe abortion should be restricted. Under 25 percent would allow it in all cases. And America is lopsidedly religious, with believers in the 90 percent range.


Yet the Democratic elites are conducting a relentless and escalating campaign against any public expression of faith. I have never seen a level of anti-religious fanaticism like the one we have now. Read the hostile press releases of Democratic hit groups like People for the American Way and the Anti-Defamation League, and you wonder if their leaders are secretly being bribed by Republicans to shrink the number of believers willing to vote Democratic.


The Hollywood left can't resist pumping its contempt for religion into show after show. The other night in a rerun of "Law and Order," Sam Waterston, the prosecutor character, said a white-supremacist group that had just killed two lawyers is something like the Christian right. Only in Hollywood would anyone casually compare conservative Christians to an organization of racist killers. This kind of stupidity delights the Democratic base, but it creates an enormous dilemma for Democratic politicians who actually want to win.


So far Hillary Clinton seems to be one of the few to recognize the scope of the problem. Besides, unlike John Kerry, a nominal Catholic who seems lost when the topic of religion comes up, Hillary Clinton is actually a religious person who can talk convincingly about faith without sounding like a hypocrite or a panderer. On church and state, she says, "There is no contradiction between support for faith-based initiatives and upholding our constitutional principles." Rather, she said, believers must be allowed "to live out their faith in the public square."


Clinton's newfound moderation seems abrupt. Just a year ago she said that opponents of abortion "are counting on the vast majority of fair-minded Americans to be ignorant, to be unaware. ... They think they can accomplish their goals as Americans sleep." This is the standard view of opponents to abortion as sinister and sneaky. You don't have to be overwhelmed by Hillary Clinton's sincerity to conclude that she is making some smart moves now.

She is beginning to distance herself from Democratic dogma.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=2206&ncid=742&e=15&u=/ucjl/20050131/cm_ucjl/stepbystephillaryismakinghermove

nightrider127
02-01-2005, 04:16 AM
I hope she don't run for the office of president. I would like to have a real choice in 2008. I just can't see myself even considering voting for her.

excuseme
02-01-2005, 06:41 AM
I hope she don't run for the office of president. I would like to have a real choice in 2008. I just can't see myself even considering voting for her.

A lot of people in NY were saying the same thing, but I feel they underestimated the Clintons. The Clintons are a real political powerhouse and will have no trouble taking the whitehouse back.

Jolie Rouge
02-02-2005, 09:49 PM
Hillary Makes It Clear

For anyone who may have been doubting, there is now NO QUESTION that Hillary Clinton is running for president in 2008. In a series of speeches last week, she unofficially declared her candidacy. She did so by moderating her position on abortion and suggesting we teach abstinence; she condemned illegal immigration; she emphasized the importance of prayer in her life; and in each speech, she reminded her audiences that she supported the war in Iraq.

All of these positions are foreign to Ms. Clinton’s far left political passions over the years. There is no way she would swerve toward the center in this way unless she is running for president. No way. Next, I suppose she’ll be talking about how to strengthen the military even though she has despised it in the past. She will say anything.

While Hillary is busy moving to the center, the Democratic Party is about to move to the left. It now looks all but certain that Howard Dean will be elected the DNC chairman on February 12. Here’s how political analyst Dick Morris feels about it:
What kind of chairman will Dean make? He will probably be as bad for the party’s prospects as Nancy Pelosi has been as Democratic leader in the House. He will dig a deeper and deeper hole for the party, alienating its moderate donors and holding it hostage to the likes of Michael Moore and the Hollywood left.


Interestingly, the Clintons have not mounted much of a fight to stop him, and political analysts in both parties are trying to figure out why. Why would they give up control of the party they’ve dominated for the last 12 years?

I have a suggestion. I believe it is just fine with the Clintons to see the Democratic Party veer to the left and essentially self-destruct. I think it is fine with the Clintons that many of the Dems in Congress remain intent on being obstructionists, even though the voting public is sick of it. Hillary, of course, will remain above the fray as she shifts toward the center.

I think it will be fine with the Clintons if the Democrats get spanked once again in the 2006 mid-term elections. If the Republicans gain even more seats in Congress in 2006, that will put the Democratic Party into a full-fledged crisis.

That sets the stage perfectly for Hillary, the centrist, to ride in on the proverbial white horse and save the party from the liberals. That’s the plan as I see it. Sadly, it might just work.

Hillary ranked far above any of the Democrats who ran for president last year, including John Kerry. So, she is popular. The question is, how many people will believe Hillary’s new centrist positions? How many will it turn off? I don’t know.

Certainly some voters will believe that by electing Hillary president, they will get Bill back in the White House. I suppose that is possible, but one wonders what Bill would have to gain by moving back to Washington and being under the microscope and Hillary’s thumb. Maybe he stays in New York.

Obviously, I could be wrong about the scenario laid out above. But when I hear Hillary soften her position on abortion and recommend teaching abstinence, no other scenario comes to mind but a run for the White House in 2008 as her party implodes in the meantime.

Finally, some of my Republican friends who are involved in politics believe that Hillary is “unelectable” because of all the skeletons in her past. I hope I’m wrong, but I don’t agree – for two reasons. First, by 2008, how many voters are really going to remember Hillary’s questionable past? And second, who are the Republicans going to run in 2008? The GOP bench is pretty much empty.

I think Hillary can win the Democratic nomination in a cakewalk. And with Bill out there on the stump for her, she could win it all. Again, I hope I’m wrong!

Very best regards,
Gary D. Halbert


SPECIAL ARTICLES

Novak on why Dean is bad for the Dems.
http://www.suntimes.com/output/novak/cst-edt-novak31.html

Mort Kondracke defends Hillary, sort of.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/Commentary/com-2_1_05_MK.html

Reinventing Hillary Clinton, again.
http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20050130-094527-2313r.htm

An interesting read from a liberal on the Social Security dilemma.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110006234

Jolie Rouge
02-09-2005, 04:08 PM
Buffalo Hillary
By Lisa Makson
Published 2/8/2005

BUFFALO, N.Y. -- Hillary Clinton is meticulously laying the groundwork for a presidential bid in 2008, evident in her recent round of ambitious speeches. The media was too busy reporting on her illness last week to notice a revealing speech she gave in Buffalo the day she fell sick, a speech in which she essentially renewed her call for Hillary Care.


"The richest nation in the world should be able to find some way to provide every citizen with quality, affordable, health coverage," Clinton said , arguing that it is a "moral responsibility" of government to provide such coverage, one that is in line with "our morals and religious obligations to care for the sick." Speaking at Canisius, a Jesuit college libertine enough to host her, Clinton did not explain how this moral vision on behalf of the sick and vulnerable squared with her staunch support for abortion.


Clinton cited a litany of statistics to argue for refashioning the U.S. health insurance system -- none of which hold up. First, Clinton said that the ranks of the "uninsured" are 40 million and growing. This is not true. A May 2003 report by the Congressional Budget Office states: "In recent years, the number of uninsured people in the United States has been pegged at approximately 40 million, or about 16 percent of the nonelderly population. By CBO's analysis, that estimate overstates the number of people who are uninsured all year and more closely approximates the number who are uninsured at a point in time during the year. A more accurate estimate of the number of people who were uninsured for all of 1998 -- the most recent year for which reliable comparative data are available -- is 21 million to 31 million, or 9 percent to 13 percent of nonelderly Americans."


Second, Hillary found it "troubling" that the U.S. "spends more money than any other country in the world" on health care, yet "we don't have results as good as some of the other countries that do have universal coverage," saying that the U.S. ranks "37th in the world in overall quality." This is not true, according to Robert Helms of the American Enterprise Institute, who notes that this U.S. ranking is based on a "very flawed and misleading" United Nations' World Health Organization study.


Helms has written that the WHO "report exhibits a strong ideological preference for health systems that rely on direct government management, an emphasis on equality of delivery and financing, and an absence of direct payment for medical care," observing that the WHO report thinks "health care is a special economic activity requiring intense governmental involvement" -- exactly the type of system Clinton envisages.


Also misleading was Clinton's claim that the U.S. spends "50 percent" more per capita on health care than Switzerland -- "15 percent of GDP" compared to "10.9 percent" -- yet has fewer doctors and nurses than other countries. "We spend more for several reasons," Helms writes, "we are wealthier, our consumers have more choices so are freer to spend as they chose, we have more use of higher technologies (note that lots of Canadians and other foreigners come to this country when they can't get access to newer technologies in their own countries), etc. -- but it is extremely difficult to measure actual differences in medical quality and outcomes. Having more nurses is a symptom of the lower-tech care in other systems. We certainly have more specialized physicians and more access to them than in other countries."


Finally, Clinton said that the "number one reason for family bankruptcy" is due to the uninsured and underinsured having "medical expenses they can't pay." Not so, according to the Galen Institute's Greg Scandlan, who has said that the study which Clinton bases this argument on is "so biased as to be worthless" because it comes from two partisans for universal health care, Harvard doctors Steffie Woolhandler and David Himmelstein, "cofounders of Physicians for a National Health Program," a group that has been pushing for a government-run system.


Clinton made sure to avoid any mention of European countries that are moving away from a national health care system. These countries, groaning under the expenses of "free" health care, are looking to the U.S. health care system as a model of reform.


John Goodman of the National Center for Policy Analysis writes that "Advocates of national health insurance would do well to look at how countries like Germany, Sweden, and Australia are choosing free-market reforms to alleviate the problems of their national health systems.…Through painful experience, many of the countries that once heralded the benefits of government control have learned that the best remedy for their countries' health care crises is not increasing government power, but increasing patient power instead."


Worried about the health of her career, Clinton is back to demagoguing health care, proposing Big Government remedies that will make Americans no healthier than she was the day she gave her speech.


Lisa Makson is a reporter based in Washington, D.C.

http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=7737

Jolie Rouge
05-26-2005, 07:15 PM
Poll: Mixed messages for Hillary Clinton
Thursday, May 26, 2005

(CNN) -- More than half of those responding to a new poll said they would be at least somewhat likely to vote for Sen. Hillary Clinton if she runs for president in 2008.

But those saying they are virtually certain to vote against her topped those virtually certain to support her by 10 percentage points in the CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll.

The poll found 29 percent were very likely to cast a vote for Hillary Clinton for president and 24 percent said they were somewhat likely.

Seven percent were not very likely and 39 percent said they were not at all likely. The margin of error was plus or minus 5 percentage points.

The poll found her on stronger ground than in June 2003, when a similar poll had as its respective numbers: 21, 21, 12 and 44.

According to the latest poll, 55 percent of respondents reported a favorable view of her, while 39 had an unfavorable one. The margin of error for that question was plus or minus 3 percentage points.

These findings were similar to the June 2003 poll that found 53 percent reacted favorably toward her and 41 percent unfavorably.

The pollsters also asked respondents their view of Clinton's place on the political spectrum.

Fifty-four percent of all those questioned said they consider her a liberal, 30 percent a moderate and 9 percent a conservative, with a 3 percentage-point margin of error.

Among registered voters, the numbers were virtually the same, with 56 percent considering her a liberal.

When asked how likely they would be to vote for a woman in 2008, 32 percent of registered voters said very likely, 41 percent said somewhat likely, 9 percent said not very likely, and 11 percent not at all likely. The question did not explore whether the political viewpoint of the woman would affect the voters' attitudes.

The results were based on telephone interviews with 1,006 adults, ages 18 and older, conducted last Friday through Sunday.

The release of the poll comes amid steps by Edward Cox, son-in-law of President Richard Nixon, to challenge Clinton for her U.S. Senate seat from New York. Clinton served on the staff of the congressional Impeachment Inquiry in the wake of Nixon's Watergate scandal in 1974.

A poll earlier this month by the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute found overwhelming support for her -- 67 percent -- among New York voters, if she decides to run for re-election next year. Among Democrats, however, 65 percent surveyed want her to pledge to serve out a full term if she runs, negating a 2008 White House bid.

Sixty-one percent also said they'd like her to run for president.

Asked by CNN whether she could pledge today that she would serve out her U.S. Senate term if re-elected, or whether she would pursue a White House run in 2008, Clinton declined to say. "I am focused on winning re-election," she said. "My view is that life unfolds in its own rhythm. I've never lived a life that I thought I could plan out."

Meanwhile, the former finance director of her ultimately successful 2000 U.S. Senate campaign is awaiting his fate before a federal grand jury. David Rosen is accused of underreporting the costs of a star-studded fund-raiser four years ago.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/05/26/hillary.clinton/index.html

excuseme
05-27-2005, 06:53 AM
Poll majority say they'd be likely to vote for Clinton



By Susan Page, USA TODAY 2 hours, 31 minutes ago

For the first time, a majority of Americans say they are likely to vote for
Hillary Rodham Clinton if she runs for president in 2008, according to a USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll taken Friday through Sunday.
ADVERTISEMENT
click here

The survey shows that the New York senator and former first lady has broadened her support nationwide over the past two years, though she still provokes powerful feelings from those who oppose her.

Clinton commands as much strong support - but more strong opposition - as George W. Bush did in a Newsweek poll in November 1998, two years before the 2000 election. She is in slightly stronger position than then-vice president
Al Gore, the eventual 2000 Democratic nominee, was in 1998.

"Over time, Clinton fatigue has dissipated ... and people are looking back on the Clinton years more favorably," says Andrew Kohut, director of the non-partisan Pew Research Center. In a Pew poll released this month, Kohut called former president
Bill Clinton and the senator "comeback kids" because of their rising ratings.

"This may also reflect that she has been recasting her image as a more moderate person," he says.

Spokesmen for Sen. Clinton declined to discuss the survey. "She's just focused on working and doing her job for New York," says Anne Lewis, a veteran Democratic operative working at Hillpac, Clinton's political action committee.

Clinton has been leading the field of Democratic presidential contenders for the 2008 election, still more than three years away. She is running for a second Senate term next year and has dodged questions about whether she'll make a White House bid.

In the poll, 29% were "very likely" to vote for Clinton for president if she runs in 2008; 24% were "somewhat likely." Seven percent were "not very likely" and 39% were "not at all likely" to vote for her.

Her strong support has risen by 8 percentage points, and her strong opposition has dropped by 5 points since the same question was asked in June 2003.

In the new survey, more than seven in 10 Americans said they would be likely to vote for an unspecified woman for president in 2008 if she were running. One in five said they wouldn't be likely to vote for her.

Karen White, political director of the liberal group Emily's List, says the findings underscore growing acceptance of women as candidates, even for president. "People realize that women reach across party lines and are problem-solvers, and they want to see more of that in public life," she says.

No woman has been nominated for national office by one of the two major parties since Geraldine Ferraro was Walter Mondale's running mate in 1984.

Voters under 30 were by far the most likely to say they would support a woman for president. More than half of them said they were "very likely" to vote for a woman, compared with less than one-third of those 50 and older.

Among those who were very or somewhat likely to vote for Clinton for president, there were:

•A big gender gap. Six of 10 women but 45% of men were likely to support her.

•Significant differences by age. Two of three voters under 30 were likely to support her, compared with fewer than half of those 50 and older.

•Strongest support from those with the lowest income. Sixty-three percent of those with annual household incomes of $20,000 or less were likely to support her, compared with 49% of those with incomes of $75,000 or higher.

•And big swings by ideology. An overwhelming 80% of liberals were likely to support her, compared with 58% of moderates and 33% of conservatives.

Among those surveyed, 54% called Clinton a liberal, 30% a moderate and 9% a conservative.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/usatoday/20050527/pl_usatoday/pollmajoritysaytheydbelikelytovoteforclinton

llbriteyes
05-27-2005, 07:20 AM
How about a Barbara Boxer/John McCain ticket?

Linda

Jolie Rouge
04-09-2008, 04:13 PM
some of this makes for interesting reading ... with 20/20 hindsight, of course...