IMO, the whole “Hillary in '04” business was a creation of the right wing, as a kind of boogeyman to try to scare people away from voting for her this year. If there’s a boomlet of support within the Democratic Party for such a run, I’ve missed it.
I think Gore will run again in '04; as I’ve said elsewhere, I believe the truth will eventually out that, absent problems with funky ballots and other stuff like that, he would’ve won FL by 10-20,000 votes. So if he loses, he’s in a position to say he was the rightful winner.
And, as David B mentions, the economy probably will slow down soon (it may already be doing so), and if that has a serious effect on people’s jobs and incomes, whoever’s president will feel the heat. Plus, if Dubya wins, he’ll cut taxes and return us to the land of enormous deficits, leaving the government no resources to cushion the crash. (Not to mention, if he cuts taxes as planned, Greenspan will probably hike interest rates to counteract the effects of the tax cuts.)
Gore, in '04, will be in a position to say, “you shoulda left me in charge - Bill and I knew what we were doing with the economy.” And he’ll be elected just in time to benefit from the recovery.
#1 reason that Hillary will be a serious candidate in '04 is the fact that people are saying that she will be. This alone is the most important determinant of who is considered a leading candidate. Usually, people begin saying it due to genuine qualities that a potential candidate has, but even if this is not the case, the very fact that people think it is will make it so.
Regarding the assertion by RTF that the Hillary boom is a creation of the right wing, I read recently that one reason that Gore is fighting so hard is that he feels that Hillary will be the presumtive candidate in '04, and that this is his last chance.
Correction re Gerald Ford; he was House minority leader.
I don’t see it. She played second fiddle for too long already.
RTF: I don’t think Bush will manage to get through all those tax cuts (what with the almost evenly-divided Senate and House), but otherwise I agree with what you said.
And as I’ve noted in previous threads, the DNC will most likely not be backing Gore in '04 whether he wants to run or not. I’d keep my eye out for House Minority Leader Richard Gephardt.
I understand your point, but I don’t completely agree. The precedent of a electing a female to the Whitehouse would be more significant in my mind than the marginal differences between the major party candidates. Personally I’d vote for any viable minority or female candidate, regardless of their party affiliation or platform. I think it’s a step the country needs to take, and the long term impact would be far greater than that of whatever schlub ‘runs’ the country for four years. I don’t have strong feelings about Hillary either way, but I do love how riled up people get where she’s concerned.
Given that the GOP had essentially no problem getting large tax cuts through this Congress (they took a big tax cut, sliced it up into a lot of little ones that they could pass individually, even picking up a few Dem votes each time) which Clinton had to veto, I anticipate little problem for them next year, unless the Dems are willing to play hardball with filibusters in the Senate.
I find it very ironic considering the vehement hatred that many republicans had for the Clintons, that by supporting a Bush victory in 2000 will translate into a very real possibility that they will lose the presidency to Hilary in 04. The woman is clearly competant and ambitious, and clearly desirous to make history as the first female president, but there is no way she can justify running against Al Gore as a sitting president. Hilary and Bill just wouldn’t be able to justify trying to unseat a man who demonstrated the loyalty that Al Gore has. On the other hand, if Gore fails, then all loyalties take a back seat as Al Gore had his chance and failed. The ultimate loyalty short of to the country will be to the party who need to put the best candidate forward and that will be Hilary.I’m definitely more conservatve than Hilary, but I think America is ripe for some shaking up.
Finally, after all this time, David B has expressed an opinion I disagree with.
If Gore loses in 2000 (as currently appears likely), he will not be the Democratic nominee in '04. The DNC is not going to risk the election on a man who took a virtual incumbency, a prosperous economy and a safe world and could only battle to a stalemate against a malaproptic daddy’s boy. And who never found a good solution to the “Nader problem.” Gore bungled the campaign, and he won’t get another chance.
Yes, I hear you say there are no credible alternatives. But there are four years for them to surface; both Clinton and Carter are perceived by history as having come “from nowhere” to take their party’s nominations and then the Presidency, so it matters little that we don’t know of any right now.
This is partly why Gore is fighting so hard to take the White House this time around. I’m sure he knows, even though the punditocracy apparently doesn’t, that this is his last shot.
I’m keeping my eyes on Gov. Evan Bayh and Sen. John Edwards. Young, smart, well-spoken. Both would make formidable candidates, especially with four more years of experience.
How quickly we forget Hillary’s campaign promise to serve her full 6 year term before seeking another office. If she runs in '04 she will make herself a liar…not that any Clinton’s are above lying. History has shown that!
Both would make formidable candidates in the general election. I’m not sure if they are liberal enough to make it through the primaries. But they could be on the ticket as VP candidates. Also, if GWB wins reeelection, the chances of moderate Democrats will improve for '08. The longer a party is out of power, the more the emphasis becomes the ability to win, as opposed to ideological purity.
One point about Gore’s chances in '04. Hindsight is always 20/20, and many times when you read post-mortems of campaigns you are left with the impression that there was no way for it to have turned out any differently, and that the loser faced overwhelming odds etc. It is possible that eventually the victory of GWB (in the courts and recounts etc.) and the failure of the Gore legal strategy will in retrospect seem to have inevitable. If this is the case, the actions of Gore in prolonging the matter might be judged more harshly than they are currently being judged.