I keep hearing and reading about Hillary running for President in '04 as though it were a forgone conclusion. And some even talk about it as though a WIN were a forgone conclusion. (Assuming, of course, that Dubya enters the Oval office under the worst possible circumstances, and proceeds to show the nation what a giant butthead he is over the next four years)
Well, first of all, this wouldn’t bother me in the slightest. In fact, I’d be incredibly thrilled. Not because I’m so over-the-top crazy about Hillary, but because it would mean a female Prez and we are SO overdue for that (and most talk has always been that our first one would have to be a Margaret Thatcher clone…I’d rather stick with men), and I assume it would also mean Bill back in the WH, even though Hillary would be running the show. I find that idea comforting… and kinda entertaining. The same damn family ranning the country, first the husband, then the wife. How cool would that be? And of course, she’s a liberal.
But it seems more than unlikely to me, it seems downright fantastical. Her getting elected in liberal New York, running against a non-candidate, is one thing. Getting the support of Democrats coast to coast is quite a different thing. Not to mention actually getting elected. I have not paid a whole lot of attention, but my overall perception has been that except when Bill done her wrong, the overall attitude towards her has been a general kind of loathing. Why and how would this change dramatically enough to make her the #1 choice of Democrats in 4 years, with anything better than a snowball’s chance in hell of getting elected?
Also…does this assume that she remains married to Bill or is divorced from him by then? What is the wisdom on which is better?
I tend to agree with you that “Hillary in '04” is an unlikely possibility. Indeed, if you compare the margin of her win here in New York to that of Gore’s over Bush, and then extrapolate to the whole country where Gore & Bush essentially tied, you conclude that she is unlikely to be able to win at this point. And she has indeed been really villified by the Right wing in this country for 8 years.
If she does well in the Senate and some peoples’ perceptions change about her over time, I could conceive of the possibility of her running in say 2008 or 2012, perhaps.
The answer, Dear Stoid, is that she’s a big name in Dem-country right now.
It’s that simple.
I imagine that she’d need a really dynamite New York run in order to even have a chance. She was the better candidate in the race, but I don’t think she’s good enough to dredge up enough support.
I imagine that, over the course of the next four years, another candidate for '04 will be hammered out of the woodworks. For both parties.
It is also worthwhile to note that no one has been elected president directly out of the Senate since John F. Kennedy in 1960. The Senate seems to be a breeding ground for VP candidates, not for presidents–indeed, no president since Nixon ever served in the Senate, and Nixon hadn’t been a senator for 16 years when he was elected.
"…the overall attitude towards her has been a general kind of loathing. Why and how would this change dramatically enough to make her the #1 choice of Democrats in 4 years, with anything better than a snowball’s chance in hell of getting elected? "
–From a pure public relations standpoint I don’t see the rest of the country coming around to the New York electorate. As a result, I picture a “Hillary in '04” candidacy as similar to the Al Smith run in 1928. He (Smith) came away from that a bitter man.
That is fascinating info. I know Ford wasn’t elected, but what had he been doing?
It seems we lately look to governors to get our presidents. Now you’ve got me curious about what all the 20th century presidents were doing just before they got elected…
It seems unlikely to me, as well – for a number of reasons.
For one, I think Gore will run again. I can’t imagine a Gore vs. Hillary primary. It would really make the Dems look bad (who does Bill choose to endorse – his VP or his wife?). Also, it’s just too soon. Hillary needs to bide her time. That may mean waiting 'til 2012, frankly (if Bush loses to a Dem in 04, she won’t want to challenge the sitting Dem president in 08).
But, as ambitious as she is, she may not see things that way. It wouldn’t entirely surprise me to see her run in 04, no matter what the consequences might be. But I don’t see her winning.
IIRC, he was Speaker of the House, a Congressman from Michigan.
The last President to be elected straight out of the House of Representatives was James Garfield, in 1880.
Let’s review the last few Presidents:
Clinton: Gov. of Arkansas
Bush: Veep, before that CIA director and influential Congressman. Lost a Senate race to Lloyd Bentsen in 1970.
Reagan: Gov. of California, perennial GOP primary candidate.
Ford: Veep, Congressman
Nixon: Vice President, Senate a long time before that, and also Congressman for a short while.
Johnson: IIRC, was in Congress before he became Vice President. But I’m not sure if it was Congress or the Senate.
Kennedy: Senate, as was already mentioned
Eisenhower: General
Truman: Vice President, but I don’t remember what he was doing before that.
FDR: Governor of New York, Assistant Secretary of the Navy
David B - You have GOT to be kidding if you think Gore will run again! ok, maybe he’ll try to run (hard to believe), but do you really think he’ll be the nominee? Do you really think that he can get past this mess?
Tell me your reasoning.
Please.
(I’d vote for him. No matter how icky this all gets, I understand it and I don’t hold it against his ability to govern - it’s just a little personailty flaw.)
Ford was House Minority Leader, not Speaker, when Nixon picked him to replace Agnew.
It’s true that almost all presidential candidates in recent decades have been either current or former governors (mainly of small states, too) or current or former vice-presidents, NOT Senators. Nixon was VP for longer than he was a Senator, so I wouldn’t count him as an exception.
Come to think of it, Kennedy was the only Senator to win since WW1, although others have been nominated.
Well, we’ll have to see how far “this mess” goes, but, yes, as I’ve noted in previous threads, I think he’ll run and, unless the a better Dem steps forward (I can’t think of any who are in a position to do so), I think he’ll win. And he will run on the issue of Bush having won “against the will of the people.” And the economy, through its natural cycle, will likely tank (or at least be worse than it has been) during the Bush presidency, so Gore will be able to say “I told you so.” Etc.
I don’t think either Hillary or Gore will be the Dem candidate in '04. I think the likelihood of another Dem bigwig coming into the limelight in the next four years is high, although my knowledge of the rosters of politicians is very small (admittedly… I am young!).
David, Stoid, anyone… any possibilities for a third choice running around out there?
The best reason for Hillary’s name being mentioned is that she is famous. Everyone knows her name so she has a huge advantage over any competitor. Most candidates spend millions of dollars to build name recognition, she would be able to skip this and spend the money more productively. She also has access to her husband’s fundraising apparatus.
These two factors would give her a huge head start over almost any competitor in the Democratic primaries.
I think Lieberman would probably be the opponent who would give her the most problems.
As a hijack, I don’t think that wanting to get a category of person elected is a healthy attitude- you start focusing on group membership instead of merits.
Could you imagine the anti-Clinton (of course spelled with a hammer and sickle “C”) bumper stickers we’d be seeing considering how vitriolic the current crop is?