Hillary rules out running for president - ever!
April 6, 2001 4:07 AM   Subscribe

Hillary rules out running for president - ever! Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton yesterday ruled out ever running for president - a startling declaration that even seemed to leave her own aides stunned. And a domain useless...
posted by frednorman (25 comments total)
When will her sick, twisted quest for power ever end?!

This is interesting. Despite positive poll numbers (and they may have slipped, but have a lot of time to recover), she still had massive negatives. I think most Democrats expected her to at least make an exploratory bid; the key factor, as always, is money, and between herself and Bill they have the best money magnets in the party. But she also doesn't represent that vast middle of the party very well, a group that also gave only lukewarm support to Gore. She's more of a traditional liberal, and less of a New Democrat, despite hubby's predelictions.

With Gore looking at academic retirement, and Hillary out, the field opens up a lot more on both the New Dem and lib/progressive wings. Look for a generational change in the party: candidates like John Edwards or even Jesse Jackson, Jr.
posted by dhartung at 7:11 AM on April 6, 2001

I still don't trust her. She's too power hungry.
posted by TacoConsumer at 7:27 AM on April 6, 2001

I had once read in a history of the presidecy in America that once any person even began to thinkj about running for the highest office in the land, ego, obbession and whatever took over. That Hillary is "power hungry" makes her little different that Tom Delay, Bush, Gore, Helms, et al.
posted by Postroad at 7:30 AM on April 6, 2001

I don't at all think she's really powerhungly; Corrupt? Sure; More corrupt than some? Sure; Lies at times? Sure;

I figure if she really was power hungry she would have tried for office way back then, when Bill was around. I don't believe that she was in charge of him, but they were as a team of sort, I don't know their intentions, but I guess they could have been as sinister as to span 20 years, to reach the whitehouse and all.

I'm really surprised she has said that, I doubt she'll keep the promise, I don't know, maybe she will. The Democratic party has very little going for it.
posted by tiaka at 7:52 AM on April 6, 2001

All of her personality foibles aside, maybe she has come to the conclusion that the US just isn't ready for a woman in the White House, at least not in her political lifetime.
posted by crunchland at 8:39 AM on April 6, 2001

Power hungry? I don't see how she's any more power hungry than any other political aspirer, past or present. Is she hungrier than Bush Sr. or Jr.? Mr. Clinton? JFK or FDR? Lincoln? Or is she being labelled "power hungry" because she's a woman?

When a woman strives for a position of power, be it a Senate seat, CEO, or chair of the board, she's often labelled "power hungry" or a "ball buster." She's "aggressive." Yet whenever a man pursues a similar position, he's "climbing the corporate ladder." He's doing what's expected, and no one's threatened.

Politicians are power hungry. Politics is a male bastion, and for a woman to succeed at the game, she has to play by the rules: seek power, ruthlessly drive one's agenda, tell people what they want to hear. This is how it works, yet Senator Clinton is criticized again and again for playing this game, and frankly I think, playing it well.

If Ms. Clinton indeed adheres to her statement to not seek the Presidency, it will be a shame. She is an extremely smart and talented woman with a great deal of charisma who would make an excellent candidate. There's been far too little progress made since 1984 in getting a woman into, or near, the Oval Office.
posted by megnut at 8:39 AM on April 6, 2001

Meg, if you had seen the gripping documentary "The Contender," you would understand that women will never get close to the White House until they stop indulging in Dionysian sex romps.
posted by Skot at 8:49 AM on April 6, 2001

Skot, if that happened, what would even be the point of living in America?
Would Hillary even win an election for President? I must admit, I'd be more likely to vote for her because she is a woman. But she's pretty well hated throughout the country.
posted by Doug at 8:58 AM on April 6, 2001

I completely agree about the dicey sentiments behind Hillary's getting called "power-hungry." Besides the lingering resentment about her delegated duties and powers in Clinton's first terms, e.g. health care, I think the paranoid fantasy about her zeroing in on the presidency also taps into an underlying belief in the pervasive moral depravity of the Clintons. She becomes a bogeyman to demonize and to project suspicions, fears, and finally hatred upon.

It's also strange how little people evaluate what her chances on a national level would really be anyway. It reminds me of the line from Annie Hall: "Don't you see the rest of the country looks upon New York like we're left-wing, communist, Jewish, homosexual pornographers? I think of us that way sometimes and I live here."
posted by Joe Hutch at 9:03 AM on April 6, 2001

I can't believe that anyone has any question about the Democratic nomination in 2004. Gore will be the nominee, period. All this talk about other potential nominees is so much air; it is inconceivable as a practical matter that Gore would be beaten by anyone in the Demcratic primaries, given, that, after all, he won the popular vote the last time around.

Even if Bush looks very strong, Gore surely will not repeat the mistake that many strong moderate Democrats made in 1991 -- judging Bush senior unbeatable due to the Gulf War, and deciding to bide their time, not recognizing the real possiblity that Bush could lose favor, and thus eliminating their chances of ever having a good shot at the Presidency.

Jay Rockerfeller and Bill Bradley definitely made this mistake, as arguably did Gore himself (who had been runner-up in '88, assuming that Jesse Jackson was never an actual viable prospect for the nomination) and Mario Cuomo, although Cuomo had issues of personal resolve and Gore was dealing with his son's recovery from an accident.
posted by MattD at 9:07 AM on April 6, 2001

But she's pretty well hated throughout the country.

She's pretty well hated in New York, too, but she won handily. No matter how much you hate someone, you still only get one vote. But you're right, it's worse in other parts of the country, and I doubt she'd have much success. Still, impressions change over time.

I know this is a radical notion, but isn't it just possible that the last eight years have taught her that the Presidency is not something worth attaining? Becoming a senator is a monumental achievement. Perhaps that's really all she wants, politically.
posted by anapestic at 9:12 AM on April 6, 2001

It better be Gore, cause the rest of the DNC has been totally p-whipped by GWB (this means you Delay & Gephardt)...
posted by owillis at 9:39 AM on April 6, 2001

If it's Gore in 2004, I say bring it on. But this affirmatively nixes any thought of moving back to New York, because this means that Hilary intends to hang out in the Senate for a while longer. Thanks, but no thanks. I'll stick with Icky Ricky and Airhead Arlen.
posted by Dreama at 9:43 AM on April 6, 2001

obPedantry: Majority Whip DeLay is a Republican. The Democratic Whip is David Bonior.
posted by Aaaugh! at 10:17 AM on April 6, 2001

Brave statement considering she never could have won anyway. Plus she's already been a two-term president. Why go through that again?
posted by redleaf at 10:34 AM on April 6, 2001

P.S. The search engine for Slate's archives is awful.
posted by redleaf at 10:35 AM on April 6, 2001

Hey, she's already got the good china...
posted by seitz at 3:09 PM on April 6, 2001

It's WAY too early to assess (emphasis on the first three letters of that word) the terrain for '04. I think Hillary is much more likely to be a Vice Presidential candidate first with a conservative Democrat. But probably not for eight years.

Gore should, and deserves to run in '04.

This will NOT happen, but what would be the dynamics of a Gore-Clinton ticket? Supreme loathing from the Right, but some moderate Republican women might go for it. Hmmmm.
posted by ParisParamus at 4:27 PM on April 6, 2001

Actually, don't answer that last one: the thought even makes me ill.
posted by ParisParamus at 4:35 PM on April 6, 2001

Megnut in 2004!
posted by jpoulos at 5:34 PM on April 6, 2001

Meg: Smart, she is; charismatic, more than most; but her politics, programs, and proposed policies (luv alliteration!) are flat-out wrong for America. She represents nothing more than Soviet-style central planning and control, which is the exact opposite of what our nation needs. Besides, to have stuck with "Ozark Bill" after his despicable personal (but public) behavior...makes you wonder about her values. I have no problem with a woman being president, but Clinton is NOT the one we should have. Say...what's Jeanne Kirkpatrick doing lately? Is she tan, rested, and ready? She'd get my vote! And if she can't/won't run, then of course I will echo jpoulos: President Megnut!
posted by davidmsc at 3:20 AM on April 7, 2001

She represents nothing more than Soviet-style central planning and control

Exaggerate much?
posted by rodii at 10:28 AM on April 7, 2001

Sorry, I meant Daschle. D's confuse me. :)
posted by owillis at 11:07 AM on April 7, 2001

I doubt she'll keep the promise, I don't know, maybe she will.

If she has learned anything from her husband, she probably will. He campaigned for his final term as governor of Arkansas in 1990 promising that he would finish out his term and wouldn't run for President in 1992 as was being speculated. But not but a few months after he won the election, he started campaigning for President. Oh well.

to have stuck with "Ozark Bill"

More pedantry. :) Bill Clinton is not from the Ozarks. He grew up in Hot Springs, Arkansas, which is in the Ouachita Mountains which are south of the Ozark Mountains in east-central Arkansas. The Ozarks span across northwest and north-central Arkansas as well as southwest Missouri and western Oklahoma.

Sorry, but I'm from Hot Springs and I have to set these things straight. I've never heard the nickname "Ozark Bill" before, though.
posted by daveadams at 8:47 PM on April 7, 2001

This entire link is premised on a story appearing in the New York Post, a publication good for little more than describing yesterday's Mets loss and fishwrap. OK, inducing nausea too. The Sunday New York Times' summary of what Hillary said is nowhere near as definitive (I would provide the link, but haven't gotten that far in my HTML lessons yet).
posted by ParisParamus at 1:51 PM on April 8, 2001

« Older Remember Dart Pigeon?   |   Newer »

This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments