The 7 1/2 year long campaign of Hillary Clinton

[SoCalDem]

Giuliani, Clinton and the Senate race that wasn't
http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2007/11/guiliani_clinton_and_the_senat.html
by Frank James

Political reporter Adam Nagourney has an interesting retrospective in today's New York Times on the race that never was, the widely anticipated but aborted Year 2000 contest for a Senate seat from New York between then First Lady Hillary Clinton and New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani. The premise for the story is that, if the electoral stars align just right in Iowa, New Hampshire and a spate of states on Feb. 5, these two could face off in 2008 and political junkies will finally have the contest they were denied when Giuliani withdrew from the 2000 Senate race, mainly because he didn't have the fire in the belly to be in the Senate.

After being chief executive of a city of eight million souls, being one of 100 in a deliberative body didn't appeal to Giuliani, Nagorney makes clear. It sounds like Giuliani was, for the most part, just going through the motions, not even talking much about federal issues in a race for a federal office. An aspect missing from the story however is that there was a very real sense during that 2000 campaign that Sen. Clinton's belly fire of ambition raged beyond the Senate all the way to the White House. Many believed she didn't see her political future ending in that deliberative body of 100 either. There was the strong suspicion that for Clinton the New York Senate race was just a way station for the most glittering of all the political prizes, the White House. There was this from a June 14, 2000 op-ed piece written by Ross Baker, the well-known Rutgers University political scientist:

snip

The Republican Senate nominee has breathed new life into the argument that Clinton is just dropping by the State of New York on her way to the White House, and real New Yorkers should spurn her advances in favor of a guy who dug his youthful toes into the sands of Great South Bay. Then there's this from a Nov. 29, 2000 Steve Neal column in the Chicago Sun-Times:

Hillary Rodham Clinton in 2004?

The senator-elect from New York, who is moving out of the White House, is hoping to return as the first woman president of the United States. It's not so wild a dream. As the rising star of national Democratic politics, she is in a strong position to win her party's nomination. Even though she has vowed to serve out her six-year senatorial term, New York voters won't hold her to that pledge. Robert F. Kennedy sought the presidency four years after his election to the senatorial seat that Clinton will soon be sitting in. There's no doubt that her eyes are on the prize.

snip

Meanwhile, Clinton desperately needed to win the Senate to give her presidential aspirations some street cred. So in a way it can be argued that the striking thing about that 2000 race was that both Giuliani and Clinton were, in their own ways, looking beyond the Senate.

[TheDonkey]

1. Hillary has been running for Pres for awhile. Note her sharp centrist pivet in 02 and beyond

She had started to craft her "tough" and "electable" commander and chief narrative. Too bad people have had enough of that "tough talk" and fear-mongering.

[SoCalDem]

2. Yup.,. that's why her campaign is so stunningly awful

One would think that 7 1/2 years of careful planning would have allowed for a more capable campaign staff & organization.

It's another "slam-dunk" miscalculation..and you would think they would have known better

[Skidmore]

4. The most disgusting thing about her long campaign is

that to get to this point, the Clintons did little to effectively help two different Dems in their bids for the WH.

[Tesha]

3. And in pivoting to the center (and beyond!), she served very badly the people who elected her...

And in pivoting to the center (and beyond!), she served
very badly the people who elected her to the Senate. I'm
no longer a New Yorker, but Mr. Tesha and I made substantial
contributions to her 2000 Senate campaign only to see her
then vote *AGAINST* our positions and for Bush positions
time and time again.

It's for this reason that I will never again support Clinton
or cast a vote for her; she is dead to me.

Tesha

[shenmue]

5. So she was running even when she wasn't running.

Wow, you can read minds? :eyes: :sarcasm:

Geez, the woman isn't allowed to do anything without one of you pouncing like she's a Roman emperor or something. I guess by those lights, everyone in the entire U.S. Senate is in the constant state of running for president.

Funny how you have nothing to say about people who have run for president many times and failed, or people like Obama who used the convention as a springboard to his popularity. Sure, you're not a hypocrite at all. :eyes:

[FrenchieCat]

6. Maybe that's the difference. Obama didn't orchestrate his appearance

at the convention, nor did he orchestrate how the convention would react to his Keynote.

It was all very natural.

I don't think he thought that he would run till he said that he decided.

I find it quite organic. Exactly the way I like it. :)

[SoCalDem]

7. It's the sense of entitlement that bothers me.. I really feel sorry for her

I think BILL wanted this for her more than SHE did, perhaps as recompense for his bad behavior as a husband..who knows?

And YES, every senator probably thinks that he/she CAN be president.. Why wouldn't they?

MY point was that , with that long of a lead-up, and one that was very transparent, one would think that she could have put together a better team..

She did not get her money's worth