Why didn't Hillary just run in 2004?

[galaxy21]

That was the perfect time for her: Clinton nostalgia was at it's highest, she had name recognition, and expereince in the senate (not as much as she has now, but Obama has less and it hasn't stopped him).


2004 was her year IMO.

[high density]

1. I think she figured after four more years of Bush

that a Democrat getting in would be a virtual slam dunk in 2008. In 2004 people were in the asinine "can't change horses midstream" thinking after Bush started the Iraq war and I think the Clintons realized this.

[jgraz]

2. That would have taken too much political courage

In order to plan her campaign, she would have had to decide to run BEFORE it was entirely obvious that the Iraq war was a failure. That's too much to ask of someone who's never taken a stand in her life.

[joeybee12]

4. Wrong...maybe she felt she needed more experience in the senate

instead of mr perfecft hair who left after one term. Lots of principled stands by him as well.

[jgraz]

5. "Mr. Perfect Hair". Careful now, your dittohead t-shirt is showing

You really should turn off Rush and Hannity -- it'll rot your brain.

Whoops. Too late.

[txaslftist]

29. Couldn't she just make up experiences?

[jgraz]

37. Or, just sleep with a couple other presidents.

:shrug:

[txaslftist]

39. She wouldn't have to really do it; just say she did.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=It6JN7ALF7Y

[Tom Rinaldo]

6. It would have taken too much political dishonesty

When Hillary Clinton decided to move to New York State and run for Senator, most New Yorkers were OK with that, with one provision. They didn't want her to move to New York, get elected to the Senate, and then immediately turn her attention to a national campaign to become President rather than serve as New York's Senator for New York's citizens. New Yorkers wanted no part of that. Most of us figured she would run for President some day, but we wanted her to serve out her full term in return for our support for running from New York.

Hillary was asked about this very question a lot when she ran in 2000, and she vowed that she would finish out her full term in the Senate if New Yorkers elected her to that position. And she did. How quaint, she kept her word.

[jgraz]

7. Naw. I think she was just pinned down by sniper fire.

[Tom Rinaldo]

16. I can think of another Presidential candidate who said he would complete his Senate term

and not run for President who changed his mind about that. Must not be any snipers in that part of the country.

[jgraz]

17. If you want to play "whose lies are worse?", that's a game you're going to lose

Badly.

We can start with the lie that she didn't know she was voting for war.

[Tom Rinaldo]

25. Look this thread asked a simple direct question

Why did Hillary not run in 2004? It happens to be a fact that she pledged the voters of New York that she wouldn't. I posted that fact. But most people on this thread continued to prefer their own theories on why Hillary did not run, mostly theories that fit some preconception of her always scheming. You are one of them. I get pissed when people refuse to even entertain the possibility that just maybe there is something positive worth acknowledging when a politician honors a pledge made to the voters. If you can't give credit where credit is due, at the very least remain silent when it is pointed out. There are plenty of other issues you can use to attack Hillary if that is what you so desperately need to do.

[jgraz]

34. Given her track record, questioning her motives is just simple common sense.

Her "sniper fire" comment is just the latest in a long string of lies dating back to the 92 primary campaign against Jerry Brown. At some point, sensible people stopped taking her public statements at face value.

[Tom Rinaldo]

45. If you have so much supposedly legitimate amunition against Hillary

then you should have no need to also paint her in a negative light when she follows through and honors a pledge, no matter how suspicious you may be. This is what poisons discussion around here and elsewhere.

[joshcryer]

23. Your contributions to this thread are worthless.

Please attempt to contribute more significantly in the future.

[jgraz]

30. Aw, that's so sad. And you know how much I crave your approval

:eyes:

[grantcart]

3. why didn't she return to IL and run for the seat that Obama ended up winning?

[DJ13]

8. I agree, but dont forget papa Bush being best buds with Bill starting in 2002

I've always wondered if Bush sr. was cutting Bill a sweetheart deal to keep Hillary out in 2004.

Maybe he supplied Bill with that connection to making millions from Dubai in 2006?

[maddiejoan]

9. Because

unlike Obama --when she pledged that she would fulfill her first term in the Senate --she meant it.

[jgraz]

10. Unlike her pledge to take her name off the ballot in MI?

I guess some pledges are more equal than others.

[LisaM]

12. No.......she pledged not to campaign there....

Can you show me something that said she would take her name off the ballot? There was no obligation to do so.

[jgraz]

15. She pledged not to "campaign or participate" in the Michigan election

To every other candidate -- including Kucinich -- that meant that they should take their names off the ballot. Once again, Hillary seems to have different rules for her own behavior.

Either way, how does campaigning to SEAT the Michigan delegates fit within the spirit of the pledge she signed? (I emphasize "spirit" because I know how you Clinton folks love to parse individual words)

How can you say she's not breaking her pledge by campaigning to seat delegates from an election that all candidates agreed wouldn't count?

[LisaM]

19. Well, Kucinich's name WAS on the ballot

but in fact, as you probably know, other candidates took their names off to placate early-state voters. (Kucinich also campaigned in Michigan).

My family at the time were for Edwards, and went and voted uncommitted (I don't live in Michigan now but I was an Edwards supporter also). I think Edwards would have had a decent showing in Michigan if the primary had counted, or at least would have been able to pick up some delegates.

But by that same logic, Obama ran ads in Florida and people are constantly insisting they were "national" ads and he couldn't help it! Well, I am in Washington state and I never saw those national ads.

[jgraz]

22. You didn't answer my question

Do you think that Hillary's current quest to seat the MI delegates is in keeping with the pledge that she signed?

[LisaM]

46. I have not seen a pledge that she signed to remove her name from the ballot

so I can't answer your question.

[jgraz]

48. I'll make it simple.

Did she sign a pledge to not participate or campaign in the Michigan primary? yes/no

If yes, is her attempt to seat the Michigan delegates in keeping with that pledge. yes/no

Two questions, two yes/no answers. Can you do that?

[jgraz]

49. * cricket noise * cricket noise * cricket noise * cricket noise *

[LisaM]

50. Well their names were all on the ballot originally - no one ADDED it.

You think she didn't keep her written pledge, okay, fine. And Obama then didn't keep his not to campaign in Florida.

But here's the real difference, I think: I always thought Michigan and Florida should have been given a higher priority. I never accepted from the beginning that they should be stripped of their delegates.

It's NOT a simple issue. That's the whole problem. I categorically refuse to be cornered into some kind of "aha!" place where we can nitpick what participation means. If you don't accept that the primary counts at all, then what difference does it make if Hillary had a box on the ballot saying Vote Hillary as Queen of the World? I am not trying to maintain that Hillary "won" this primary. That's ridiculous on its face. But I've always maintained that the DNC screwed this up (well before the primary occurred) because I am from Michigan and I think that their economic issues deserved a lot of attention from the DNC. I think facts have borne that out. The economy has risen in importance as an issue. Now a state that has felt the brunt of it is pissed off.

[Yael]

52. Added/removed

you say tomato, I say tomato...

[Yael]

51. You haven't?

NY Times:

Hours after Senator Barack Obama of Illinois and former Senator John Edwards of North Carolina agreed to sign a loyalty pledge put forward by party officials in Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York followed suit.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/02/us/politics/02dems.html?ref=politics

Washington Times:

Senator Clinton signed a pledge that she would not campaign in any state that violates the DNC approved calendar. Therefore, we did not campaign in Michigan, nor will we campaign in Florida in violation of the pledge.

http://video1.washingtontimes.com/bellantoni/2008/01/clinton_wins_michigan.html

That was just a quick google. Let me know if you need more...

[joshcryer]

24. You are using "participate" on a wide brush.

In fact, by *taking ones name off the ballot* after it was already on there before the pledge, that could be construed as "participation" using your wide brush.

[jgraz]

35. And you are using the typical Clintonian razor blade.

As long as a statement or pledge can be parsed to the point where a Clinton can dodge responsibility, their supporters give them credit for being honest.

You also seem to not want to answer my question: How is her attempt to seat the MI delegates in keeping with the pledge she signed?

[Fredda Weinberg]

11. ..

[Rockholm]

38. Good One.

[helderheid]

13. knew Bush would steal it again?

[DangerDave921]

14. Very simple

It's much harder to unseat a President than it is to win in an open field. I think she saw a huge vacuum after Bush, which she would fill with her name recognition and her gender. And losing in 2004 would have made it harder for her to be taken seriously in 2008.

[kimmerspixelated]

18. Well, I think she should have tried back then.

In light of everything that's happened, I believe that 2004 would have been the ideal time. I probably would've been swayed in her direction then. For Clinton, I really believe that it is now or never. She doesn't really have another shot at it. In 8 years, she will be considered too old, perhaps. And congrats, you had one of the few posts that didn't sound completely nasty in your reply. I'm just astonished at the meanies I've seen here lately!

[DangerDave921]

43. Thanks

Politics is an interest of mine so I try to retain some detachment in evaluating policies and candidates. It's not a life-or-death passion with me. So while I can certainly be critical, I try not to be nasty. And to be honest, I'm always a little freaked out by folks who are so die-hard committed to a candidate. It's just politics. It's important of course, but it's not worth having a heart attack over. And it's not worth all the name-calling on here! :)

[Quixote1818]

20. I agree. nt

[Rubiconski2009]

21. She wudda lost then too.

The Clintons are conniving and dishonest.

Anyone who wants them anywhere near the White House has to be delusional.

[Doctor_J]

26. I think she'd committed to the people of NY to finish that term

so don't go there.

[helderheid]

32. I remember back then that some kind of committee had formed for a possible 2004 run. I hope somone

else here remembers that too and can provide links.

[susankh4]

27. She thought that she should serve a few more years in the senate

for the sake of experience.

That's a common thing to do before seeking a promotion, you know....

[jgraz]

40. However, it's not common to seek a promotion after fucking up as badly as she has.

Her vote for the war is just the start of why she should be disqualified from seeking higher office.

[txaslftist]

28. Too busy dodging imaginary snipers?

[JVS]

31. bawk bawk bawk! She was Chicken! bawk!

[leftstreet]

33. It wasn't part of the deal

Bush/Clinton/Bush/Clinton/Bush/Clinton/Bush/Clinton/Bush/Clinton/Bush/Clinton

[maddiejoan]

42. ...

Prison/Freedom/Prison/Freedom

[Rockholm]

36. Freshman Senator. Exactly why Obama should not be running.

[zalinda]

41. She made a promise not to run in her first term

she kept that promise, unlike some other Senator we could mention.

zalinda

[powergirl]

44. Because polling demonstrated that she could not win

I remember Carville, our good friend, discussing this in 2004.

[jgraz]

47. And yet, when actual *elections* demonstrate she can not win...

:shrug: