Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
September 02, 2014, 09:13:56 am
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Atlas Hardware Upgrade complete October 13, 2013.

+  Atlas Forum
|-+  Election Archive
| |-+  2004 U.S. Presidential Election
| | |-+  Honest Question For Dems
« previous next »
Pages: [1] Print
Author Topic: Honest Question For Dems  (Read 5899 times)
agcatter
agcat
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3751


View Profile
« on: December 07, 2003, 06:48:58 pm »
Ignore

One of the more interesting subplots in 04 will revolve around what Bill & Hillary are up to.  Namely, do they really want to see Dean elected in November?

Dean has already said that he wants to show Clinton ally Terry McCauliff the door at the DNC.

The other thing is do Bill and Hillary really want to have their 2008 run put off to 2012?

Personally, I just can't see either Hillary or Bill very happy about sitting on the sidelines for 8 years while President Dean runs the show.  As President, a fiercely independent Howard Dean will do as he damed well pleases.  An independent Dean with no allegiance to the Clintons vs. Hillary and Bill's and their obvious ambitions.  Interesting.

Wouldn't you hate to be caught in the middle of that one?
Logged
Nym90
nym90
Modadmin
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 15187
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.55, S: -2.96

P P P

View Profile
« Reply #1 on: December 07, 2003, 06:58:09 pm »
Ignore

Bill and Hillary want the Dem nominee to win, whomever that is. They probably would rather see someone other than Dean win the nomination, but they will support Dean if he does win, and if he wants their help they'll give it to him in the campaign. If they were so intent on stopping Dean they would've endorsed someone else.
The Clintons care about the country and their party more than their own personal ambitions. I know you don't agree, but my conclusion about this is just as obvious to me as yours is to you.
Logged
StevenNick
StevenNick99
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1912


View Profile WWW
« Reply #2 on: December 07, 2003, 07:01:32 pm »
Ignore

I think Hillary is pleased as punch that Dean is poised to get the nomination.  I think she views the 2004 election as unwinnable for Democrats (otherwise she'd be running) and especially unwinnable for Dean.  I think she wants Dean to go down in flames in November so that she can emerge from the ashes of the party as the only remaining figure of National stature in the Democratic party who hasn't been tarnished by an embarrassing election debacle.

She's been asked repeatedly whether or not she's going to run in 2004 and her answer is always the same:  no, but maybe in 2008.  Obviously she wouldn't run against an incumbent Democratic president in 2008.  She must think that Democrats are going to lose in 2004.
Logged



Economic Left/Right: 5.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 0.00
agcatter
agcat
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3751


View Profile
« Reply #3 on: December 07, 2003, 07:57:42 pm »
Ignore

<the Clintons care more about the country and their party more than their own personal ambitions>

Hmmm

Logged
Nym90
nym90
Modadmin
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 15187
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.55, S: -2.96

P P P

View Profile
« Reply #4 on: December 07, 2003, 08:38:20 pm »
Ignore

She doesn't necessarily think Dems will lose, she's just saying that she might run in 2008 if there wasn't an incumbent Democrat.
Logged
dazzleman
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 13821
Political Matrix
E: 1.88, S: 1.59

View Profile
« Reply #5 on: December 07, 2003, 08:42:36 pm »
Ignore

Bill and Hillary want the Dem nominee to win, whomever that is. They probably would rather see someone other than Dean win the nomination, but they will support Dean if he does win, and if he wants their help they'll give it to him in the campaign. If they were so intent on stopping Dean they would've endorsed someone else.
The Clintons care about the country and their party more than their own personal ambitions. I know you don't agree, but my conclusion about this is just as obvious to me as yours is to you.

You really have to be kidding.  The Clintons have never put the good of the country ahead of their own personal ambitions.  If Hillary thought the Democrats could win in 2004, she'd be running, without question.  She's sitting it out because she doesn't want to lose.

The Clintons will do next to nothing to help Dean if he gets the nomination, and they'll probably work to sabotage him from behind the scenes.  That leaves the field open for Hillary in 2008.  She certainly doesn't want to wait until 2012, and she knows the Democrats have their best chance after (presumably) 8 years of Republican rule.
Logged
Nym90
nym90
Modadmin
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 15187
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.55, S: -2.96

P P P

View Profile
« Reply #6 on: December 07, 2003, 08:50:27 pm »
Ignore

I completely disagree, and I'm not kidding. You must be the one who is kidding for thinking that the Clintons wouldn't put the party and the country ahead of their own political ambitions. The Clintons want a Democratic President to be elected in 2004. Sure, if the nomination is available in 2008 Hillary may well run for it, but she'd much rather have a Democrat elected in 2004, even Dean. It's absolutely absurd to suggest that the Clintons would deliberately try to get Dean defeated in 2004. There is no way that the Clintons want 4 more years of Bush.

I guess this shows why the nation was (and still is today) so divided during the Clinton years. People like me thought he was a great president, while others absolutely loathed him. And for both sides, their view of him was obviously and without question the correct one.
Logged
NorthernDog
Full Member
***
Posts: 167


View Profile
« Reply #7 on: December 07, 2003, 10:43:49 pm »
Ignore

The Democrat Party has been on a downward spiral since Clinton was first elected in '92.  They have lost control of both branches of Congress, the Presidency, the majority of Governships, and the majority of state legislatures.  If this is how the Clintons have helped build-up their party I hope they keep up the good work.  
Logged
Wakie
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3809


View Profile
« Reply #8 on: December 08, 2003, 10:14:19 am »
Ignore

You really have to be kidding.  The Clintons have never put the good of the country ahead of their own personal ambitions.  If Hillary thought the Democrats could win in 2004, she'd be running, without question.  She's sitting it out because she doesn't want to lose.
Ok now, settle down.  Let's not drag this into a "Clinton is evil, Bush is evil" argument.

In response to the original question I have to say that while Howard Dean is not my favorite of the Democratic candidates (my personal favorite is John Kerry) I would vote for him over George Bush.  In fact I'd vote for any of the Democratic candidates (except Sharpton & Kucinich) over Bush.

I think most Democrats feel this same way.  On our side of the fence there is a general dissatisfaction with Bush's performance.  I tend to believe that the Clintons probably feel the same way.  They will both endorse whomever wins the nomination.

If the nominee (whether that is Dean, Kerry, or whomever) wins the general election then that individual will, unquestionably, become the leader of the party.  Should that happen, Hillary is best served (whether you believe her motives to be noble or self-serving) by working with that person.

Would there be some tension?  Yes, probably some as there was between Robert Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson.

Would I, as a Democrat, hate being "caught in the middle"?  Well, I'd prefer it to 4 more years of a Bush administration.
Logged
jravnsbo
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1898


View Profile
« Reply #9 on: December 08, 2003, 10:35:20 am »
Ignore

Hill and Billy don't want Dean to win that is obvious, or why get Clark into the race?

Next as said whoever the nominee is picks the next head of the DNC and so if Dean wins, by ebye toy our job McAuliffe win or lose.

Dean keeps talking about changing Dem party and would have a lot of influence on that if he is the nominee win or lose and the Clintons can't like that a bit.

I think Hilliary wants Dean to get nomination and get beat, as they can't control him like they could a Clark.  They want their kind of Democrat in there to control him and run the country in the shadows.  Hilliary's best shot is in 2008 in an open field.  She would win nomination , general would be tougher, but get the nominationa dn hope--that is what Dean is trying to do.
Logged

Currently in Iraq, risking my butt to protect yours!

Republicans think every day is July 4, Democarts think every day is April 15
President Reagan

Well I can hear you and soon the whole world will hear all of us. President George Bush
jravnsbo
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1898


View Profile
« Reply #10 on: December 08, 2003, 10:36:38 am »
Ignore

oh yeah Clintons put country before own ambitions, HAHAHAAHAHAHAAHA

Yeah Hilliary waited a long time before running for office and keeping things alive froma  state she never really associated with, NY, while Bill was still in office.
Logged

Currently in Iraq, risking my butt to protect yours!

Republicans think every day is July 4, Democarts think every day is April 15
President Reagan

Well I can hear you and soon the whole world will hear all of us. President George Bush
Wakie
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3809


View Profile
« Reply #11 on: December 08, 2003, 01:58:07 pm »
Ignore

oh yeah Clintons put country before own ambitions, HAHAHAAHAHAHAAHA

Yeah Hilliary waited a long time before running for office and keeping things alive froma  state she never really associated with, NY, while Bill was still in office.
So you realize that a message with this kind of tone is just inviting a flame war, right?
Logged
Nym90
nym90
Modadmin
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 15187
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.55, S: -2.96

P P P

View Profile
« Reply #12 on: December 08, 2003, 07:19:16 pm »
Ignore

Well, I laugh at the prospect that the Clintons care only about their own ambitions and would deliberately sabotage Dean in 2004, and want Dean to lose. They may not want Dean to win the nomination, that much I'll agree with, but they would prefer any of the serious Dem candidates to Bush.

I agree that I don't want this to be a flame war, but what would you conservatives say if I was on here saying the Bush family only cares about their own ambitions, they don't care about the GOP or the country at all, they deliberately sabotaged Dole's campaign in 1996 because they wanted him to lose so that W could run in 2000, W knew he couldn't win that year so they wanted Clinton to win, otherwise W would've had to wait until 2004.  You have to at least expect liberals to not let ridiculous charges like yours go unanswered.

And if Bush wins reelection they'll probably do it again in 2008, they'll know that Jeb can't run right away because it'll be too dynastic, so they'll deliberately sabotage the GOP nominee that year so that Jeb can run in 2012, they don't want someone like Frist to win because then Jeb would have to wait until 2016.
If I was as delusional as you are, that's the kind of stuff I'd be saying.
Logged
Pictor Ignotus
TCash101
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6434


View Profile
« Reply #13 on: December 08, 2003, 08:48:44 pm »
Ignore

Thos makes the assumption that Bill and Hillary's political agendas are one and the same. I beg to differ. They disagree on issues; many have said it's a facade of a marriage. When Fla was involved in recount, Bill stayed quiet (and was busy giving pardons); Hillary spoke out and "predicted" or hoped out loud that Gore would prevail. Hillary has supported abolition of the electoral college; Bill has not. Bill has proposed ending the limit on two terms for the Presidency; Hillary has said she would not support such a move. Bill is the totally self-interested one, Hillary, while certainly ambitious, is less willing to compromise her views to grab power. I can certainly see Bill hoping the Dems lose so he has a better chance of being "first dude" but I don't see Hillary in any conscious way plotting the downfall of her party. The suggestion that she puts herself ahead of the causes she has espoused for decades is merely the contempt right wingers have for anything unlike them. Get a grip and focus on the workings of your own party, which has clearly abandoned the "less government" mantra both in terms of federal spending and protecting the civil liberties of its citizens. Also, the title of the thread is true to GOP form: the topic was neither honest nor a question.
Logged

Renew our Democracy!
Nym90
nym90
Modadmin
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 15187
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.55, S: -2.96

P P P

View Profile
« Reply #14 on: December 08, 2003, 10:15:57 pm »
Ignore

It's interesting that you bring up the pardons, as Clinton was recently absolved of any wrongdoing in the Marc Rich pardons.
I agree that Bill would be more willing to compromise than Hillary, mainly because Bill is more moderate and thus more inclined to try to reach consensus with his opponents.
I'm not necessarily saying that my view of Clinton is the only correct one, but a lot of Republicans just take it as a fact that the Clintons are corrupt and power hungry and will destroy anyone in their path to get whatever they want, including fellow Dems. To me, the exact opposite is plainly obvious, that the Clintons are both extremely caring individuals who rose up from the bottom ranks on their own sweat and toil and thus have a genuine appreciation for the problems and concerns of ordinary folk, unlike most other politicians. I personally have great admiration for the fact that Bill Clinton was more or less just a regular kid in rural Arkansas, with a bad family life, lost his father before he was even born, had an abusive step father, and then rose from that situation in a middle class family with humble roots to become President of the United States. It truly is the American dream come true.
Logged
Ryan
ryanmasc
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 332


View Profile
« Reply #15 on: December 12, 2003, 04:57:07 pm »
Ignore

I'm compelled to agree with Nym that the clintons are not actively working to ensure a democratic defeat in 2004.

Of course I do not have such a rosy picture of Clinton (s) but thats another discussion.

My guess is that they will support the eventual nominee and work for his victory but they may well be just a little less disappointed if he loses than they should be. Wink
Logged

Quote
CHRISTOPHER MICHAE
Guest
« Reply #16 on: December 12, 2003, 09:09:46 pm »

Hill and Billy don't want Dean to win that is obvious, or why get Clark into the race?

Next as said whoever the nominee is picks the next head of the DNC and so if Dean wins, by ebye toy our job McAuliffe win or lose.

Dean keeps talking about changing Dem party and would have a lot of influence on that if he is the nominee win or lose and the Clintons can't like that a bit.

I think Hilliary wants Dean to get nomination and get beat, as they can't control him like they could a Clark.  They want their kind of Democrat in there to control him and run the country in the shadows.  Hilliary's best shot is in 2008 in an open field.  She would win nomination , general would be tougher, but get the nominationa dn hope--that is what Dean is trying to do.

You need to look at what you wrote in your last paragraph again. You don't make any sense, typical Republican! If, like you say, Hillary wants to be able to control the DEM candidate, and you say she cannot control Dean, but she would be able to control Clark, why would she want Dean nominated in the first place. She'd want Clark to be the Nominee!  DA
Logged
Mr. Fresh
faulfrisch
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1518
United States
Political Matrix
E: -0.45, S: 2.17

View Profile
« Reply #17 on: December 12, 2003, 09:58:10 pm »
Ignore

Hill and Billy don't want Dean to win that is obvious, or why get Clark into the race?

Next as said whoever the nominee is picks the next head of the DNC and so if Dean wins, by ebye toy our job McAuliffe win or lose.

Dean keeps talking about changing Dem party and would have a lot of influence on that if he is the nominee win or lose and the Clintons can't like that a bit.

I think Hilliary wants Dean to get nomination and get beat, as they can't control him like they could a Clark.  They want their kind of Democrat in there to control him and run the country in the shadows.  Hilliary's best shot is in 2008 in an open field.  She would win nomination , general would be tougher, but get the nominationa dn hope--that is what Dean is trying to do.

You need to look at what you wrote in your last paragraph again. You don't make any sense, typical Republican! If, like you say, Hillary wants to be able to control the DEM candidate, and you say she cannot control Dean, but she would be able to control Clark, why would she want Dean nominated in the first place. She'd want Clark to be the Nominee!  DA

And you OBVIOUSLY didn't read what he said.  Gosh "typical" Democrat.  He said that Hillary wants Dean to get the nomination and LOSE!  BECAUSE they couldn't control Dean like they could Clark, and as discussed in other topics, if Dean won in '04 then he could easily win in '08 therefore Hillary would be out 8 years.

I'd like point out that I really don't agree with either, just that the comment of "typical Republican" really didn't make me too happy.
« Last Edit: December 12, 2003, 10:04:53 pm by Mr. Fresh »Logged
Pages: [1] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines