Much has been said about Hillary’s desires to run for President in '08, and the Clinton wing of the democrat party to undermine Kerry’s run for president. That is, if Kerry should win, Hillary wouldn’t be able to run until '12. She’d probably be long forgotten. Therefore, is a vote for George W. Bush in '04 a vote for Hillary R. Clinton in '08?
No- I think John Edwards established himself as the heir apparent to the party. Certainly the Clintons have their hearts set on 8 more years in the White House and they would dearly love to see Kerry lose, but even if he did I don’t see her catching on with the voters. I’m as liberal as they come, and even I dislike her.
A vote for George Bush is a vote for George Bush.
A vote for John Kerry is a vote for John Kerry.
A vote for Ralph Nader is a vote for Ralph Nader.
This is an election, not a chess match.
Has any of this been said by a credible source? Sounds a lot like Republican fantasizing to me…
Much may have been said about it, but only by Republicans. Hillary will not run in 2008, just as she didn’t run in 2004 despite the predictions of almost every single conservative chatterer. There is no “Clinton wing” of the “democrat party”, and no-nontrivial segment of the party is trying to undermine Kerry.
Nevertheless, if any Republicans want to go around preaching that it’s a good idea to not vote for Shrub this year in order to prevent Hillary from taking the office in 2008, they may do so with my blessing.
Huh? The Clinton wing wanted to undermine Dean, I haven’t heard anything about them not wanting Kerry. I suppose if they had their druthers they might have preferred Edwards or Clark to Kerry, but that’s just speculation, and neither of those candidates could be said to bring a lot of experience to the table.
Electing GWB makes a Hillary Clinton candidacy in '08 a much more viable proposition.
I doubt many GWB supporters will withhold their votes for him based on that fear.
But do give it a thought, folks. 
“…is a vote for George W. Bush in '04 a vote for Hillary R. Clinton in '08?”
Given your scenario, a vote for GWB in '04 would be a vote for the succeeding Republican candidate. I don’t think she’d get a lotta votes.
(my cynical nature tells me that a vote for GWB in '04 is a vote for GWB in '08–we will forgive his shady win in '04 and his clever elimination of presidential term limits in favor of voting for a Democrat we don’t like)
Presidential term limits are bullshit. This is a democratic Republic and we should be allowed to elect the best candidate for the job to the office as many times as we want to, or as few.
You just start working on repealing the 22nd amendment there. I’ll wait here.
And wait…wasn’t it Republicans who pushed that?
Not hardly, in my opinion. He didn’t put up that strong a fight. If you haven’t been vice-president or something, in order to establish yourself as heir apparent you have to do something like what Reagan did against Ford in 76. And even he had competition in 80, though not for long.
If Bush wins this year, it’s a wide open race in aught-8, with or without an Edwards candidacy, with or without a Clinton candidacy. Of course, with luck and hard work, in 08 we’ll be discussing the chances of a Kerry reelection.
Yes, it was. And it is quite a shame that such a vile amendment was placed in our constitution purely out of partisan concerns. The Republicans of that era were pissed at losing to so Democrats in so many consecutive elections they foolishly changed the Constitution.
If Kerry wins we’ll be discussing how to get the worst President since Jimmy Carter out of office.
Isn’t that what we’re trying to have happen now?
That depends entirely on what side of the aisle you sit on :).
Couldn’t have said it better myself.
One can only hope not. :eek:
Actually, Edwards was still a contender for the nomination much later in the season than has typically happened for either party during the last generation. I wouldn’t say that Edwards is the “heir apparent”, but he seems like the most likely Democratic contender in '08 if Kerry loses in '04.