Matt Drudge is hyping the rumor that Hillary Clinton will be John Kerry’s VP candidate.
Oh, please, please, John, do pick her…
In all seriousness, I don’t think this is very likely, but it’s within the realm of possibility. Then again, it’s pretty damn clear that Hillary has her eyes set on 2008, and I wouldn’t put it past her to use the Kerry campaign to build national campaign experience while simultaneously scuttling it to ensure he doesn’t win — leaving her in a stronger position to run in 2008…
My money’s still on Edwards or Vilsack, but given Hillary’s previous comments a Kerry/Clinton ticket would be the Republicans dream come true…
I don’t think she will do it…
First, she’d rather have it all in 2008 than the no. 2 spot in 04…
Second, can you imagine her ego trying to work with Kerry’s big ego…it would be a huge disaster…and I don’t think she would be happy working with him in any Kerry administration as number 2
Third, ultimately, it is the person at the top of the ticket…and Hillary would so overshadow Kerry that she would make Kerry look super weak (even weaker than he looks now)…almost like an afterthought…
Fourth, if Kerry would win, I think he would have the most failed presidency since Jimmy Carter…probably worse and certainly no better…then if Kerry gets booted in 08, then Hillary has to play the part of Mondale in 2012…
Here’s kind of a more far out theory, but with the Clintons, who knows?
Hillary gets on the ticket with Kerry…then the Clintons “torch” Kerry and do a political hit job on him…maybe revealing an affair of his, or something in his divorce papers…so that then Hillary ends up at the top of the ticket…
It is a measure of the weakness of Kerry that the only time his campaign gets any attention…the only time it generates any excitement…is on rumors of his veep pick…
First it was the McCain speculation, now Hillary…
Another Thought, I seem to remember the right insisting that Bill Clinton would preside over “the most failed Presidency since Carter” back at this time in 1992. What a joy is was to watch Clinton pass a fistful of policies that the GOP insisted would devastate the country….and the nation was rewarded with the longest economic expansion in American history while simultaneously fixing the budgetary ruin left behind from his predecessors. After you guys dropped the ball so badly predicting how the Clinton years would play out, I would think you’d be smart enough to get out of the business of projecting doomsday outcomes for Democratic Presidents.
I do agree with you about one thing, however. The fact that Hillary and Tom Vilsack are being elected to VP material is proof-positive that the Democratic Party is short on heroes these days. I can’t see how anyone could believe that a presidential ticket with Hillary at either the top or the bottom could be a winning one, and the fact that so many people seem to think its the Dems ticket to electoral riches just validates how out-of-touch Democratic party leaders have become with Middle America. The Clintons have to be smart enough to realize this themselves, which is one of several reasons I don’t buy into the black helicopter conspiracy theories of the Clintons sabotaging Kerry so that Hillary’s the front-runner for 2008. Four more years of Dubya will destroy so much that I can’t see any Democrat wanting to inherit such a mess.
For the most part, however, I think the fascination with Hillary is primarily coming from the media and Republicans. Putting Hillary on a pedestal keep the legacy of Clinton family hatred alive for conservatives, who would have nothing to do but walk around in circles all day if not for clinging to the prospect of more shenanigans from the Clintons that they can spew volumes of hate about.
Mark: while I am sure that some predicted calamity during a Clinton administration, I can tell you that while I did not want Clinton to win, I did not necessarily think it would be a Carter type disaster of a presidency (and I remember well how bad Carter was).
So I don’t know that I agree with your first premise…also, I don’t believe you can give Clinton the credit for everything good that happened under his term with regards to the economy…the economy was already recovering when Clinton took office, his spending was restrained by the GOP Congress, and he was forced to sign welfare reform. Plus, let’s face it…the President is powerful, but he is not God…so to give Clinton sole credit for the economy of the 90’s is very far-fetched indeed.
Also, remember that Clinton got a balanced budget due in part to large cuts in defense and intel spending…the so-called “peace dividend.” In retrospect, that looks to have been poor judgement.
Plus, some of the economic boom was an illusion…a bubble compounded by some massive corporate fraud that happened while Clinton was president…do you attribute that to Clinton as well?
Also, the stock market began to tank in spring of 2000…the economy entered into recession in the last year of Clinton’s term…do you attribute that to Clinton as well?
And, dare we need to say it, there was Clinton’s neglect of the terrorist problem…
So, looking back, were the Clinton years that good? They looked good, but so did the roaring 20’s, which only led to the depression and WWII.
I think the 90’s were alot like Clinton: more image than substance. I liken Clinton to the used car that one buys and drives away in, thinking it is so shiny and rides so great…only to have it break down a few miles down the road after one has left the dealership.
Mark: it is not the Republicans who keep building Hillary up…we did not ask her to write a book…we did not ask Bill to write a book…it is the Clintons who crave the attention and who continually seek it out…
Another Thought, I agree with much of what you say about the Clinton economy. Much of his success came from playing defense and riding a wave that turned out to be a bubble. However, he still had to make some unpopular choices to ensure the short-term recovery he inherited in 1993 would last. He wisely backed away from his pandering campaign pledge of a middle-class tax cut and invoked modest but necessary tax increases as part of his economic stimulus package which thankfully passed Congress, no thanks to any Republicans. The usual cries from the right about the “end of the recovery as we know it” failed to materialize, the recovery chugged on and produced a bountiful dividend of revenues primarily off of people who still made a fortune in the years to come even with the higher rates. Meanwhile, the deficits melted, freeing up lending capital that was previous tied down to deficits incurred during the irresponsible tax rates of Clinton’s predecessors…and the business climate improved.
The economy would most likely have tumbled if HillaryCare had become a reality, but it at least raised awareness of the desperate need for national health care in this country. The remaining six years of Clinton’s tenure primarily consisted of stopping the Republicans from derailing the gravy train. He wisely vetoed hundreds of budget-busting tax cut proposals that came out of the Gingrich-Hastert-Lott Congresses that would have overheated the economy and sent deficits soaring. He also wisely vetoed the Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution, which on the surface seems like a good way of stopping Republicans from tax-cutting the country bankrupt, but comes with the kinds of consequences that most states of the union could lecture you about after the last few years.
Clearly, Clinton made some bad choices, although it’s hard to pin corporate scandals on him since many of the sweetheart loopholes that helped the Enrons and the WorldComs get away with what they did were passed under Reagan and the DINO Congresses he presided over. Those that were passed under Clinton were steamrolled through the Republican Congress, and in one case vetoed by Clinton but overridden.
Clinton also should have vetoed welfare reform. The solid job market of the late 90’s produced a mirage of success for this legislation, but it will be a cruel and dismal failure in the more traditional labor markets of today and likely tomorrow. Globalization in particular will erase the majority of living wage low-skill and semi-skill jobs in America, substantially expanding the ranks of the impoverished while simultaneously offering a diminished safety net. I’m no fan of NAFTA and GATT as they are currently designed, and list those on the “black mark” list of the Clinton legacy as well.
I began to become concerned with military cuts by the late 90s. I wasn’t close enough attention to the reduction of intelligence services, but there’s no dispute that that was a mistake. Nonetheless, had Bush-41 been re-elected or had Dole been elected, most of the military cuts would have still went through because there was no longer a need for a Cold War-era military. As recently as September 10, 2001, the Bush administration was still slashing and burning the military to its core.
By 2000, the business cycle had completed its longest tenure of expansion in more than two centuries. Trying to pin its end on Clinton is just as foolish as trying to pin it on Dubya, who inherited it. If anyone is to be blamed for the recession, it’s Alan Greenspan who raised interest rates five times in 2000 to combat non-existent inflation. Even that’s a bit of a stretch though since the business cycle generally rises and falls based on its own weight.
The analogy of Clinton being like a shiny new car that breaks down once you leave the dealership isn’t particularly effective. While mistakes were surely made, Clinton was far more mindful of the nation’s challenges and problems than anyone else with a leadership position in Washington in the 1990s. I won’t speculate too much on where the country would be right now if Clinton had been re-elected to a third term, but I feel safe in predicting that we’d far better off in nearly ever sector than we are today.