Anyone but a Bush or a Clinton
The U.S. needs a leader in 2008 who doesn't inherit the office because of a last name.
By James Burkee, JAMES BURKEE, an assistant professor of history at Concordia University Wisconsin, is co-founder of the bipartisan political action committee Americans for Responsibility in Washington.
January 22, 2007
HAVING REFUSED a third term as president, George Washington offered the nation a farewell address in 1796, urging Americans to cherish the Union and to avoid the "baneful effects" of political partisanship. Successors such as Thomas Jefferson warned against the formation of an "unnatural" aristocracy of men who inherited great fortunes and political office.Both of these warnings have been overlooked in the debate over Hillary Rodham Clinton's 2008 presidential run.
But if she secures the Democratic nomination, wins and serves two terms, by 2017 the United States will have been governed by either a Bush or a Clinton for 28 years. That's three decades governed not just by the same two families but much of the same supporting staff. As Dick Cheney is a name familiar to both Bush presidencies (as George H.W. Bush's secretary of Defense and his son's vice president), so too may a Hillary Clinton presidency resuscitate familiar names such as Harold Ickes, Paul Begala and James Carville.And it might not end there.
Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, encouraged by Republican leaders and the current president (who said, "I would like to see Jeb run at some point"), has not ruled out a White House bid or a vice presidential slot on the ticket in 2012 or 2016.
If Washington's caustic, partisan atmosphere is to change, the era of Bushes and Clintons needs to end in 2008. Three times in American history have close relatives of former presidents won the office. John Quincy Adams, son of John Adams, lost the popular vote to Andrew Jackson in 1824 but won in the electoral college amid charges of a "corrupt bargain." Benjamin Harrison, grandson of William Henry Harrison, lost the popular vote to Grover Cleveland in 1888 and also suffered as a "minority president" and mere figurehead. George W. Bush lost the popular vote to Al Gore in 2000.
Recent polls suggest that a significant body of Americans, perhaps 40%, will not vote for Hillary Clinton under any circumstances — so it is unlikely that she could enter the Oval Office with a strong electoral mandate. The ironic upshot is that such a Hillary Clinton presidency — weakened by low approval and beset by partisan sniping — would mirror George W. Bush's presidency.
That the Bush's administration has been consumed by political partisanship comes as no surprise to students of history. From the time of John Quincy Adams — whose term in office marked the end of the Era of Good Feelings — the children, grandchildren and spouses of presidents engender exceptional hostility when they seek office themselves. For all their personal capacities, the latter Adams, Harrison and Bush — like Hillary Clinton — inherited their claims to the presidency. George W. Bush would not be president today were his name not George Bush, nor Hillary a senator from New York absent the Clinton name.
This nation's traditional commitment to meritocracy inclines many to reject these "unnatural" aristocrats, who never garner widespread popularity. Minority and bare-majority presidents are weak leaders because nothing undergirds presidential power like an election mandate. The strongest post-World War II presidents — Dwight Eisenhower, Lyndon Johnson and Ronald Reagan — were also its most popular. (Eisenhower and Johnson won at least 55% of the vote; Reagan polled just over 50% in 1980 with independent John Anderson in the race, then 59% in 1984.)
Presidencies enveloped by partisanship — Harry Truman, Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton — were made of men who won office on the barest of majorities or pluralities (Truman won 49.6% of the popular vote in 1948; Carter won 50.1% in 1976; Clinton won 43% and 50% in 1992 and 1996). Pundits compare 2006 to the late Nixon years, with a country disillusioned by war and a deep distrust of its political leadership. In one of his last interviews, former President Ford lamented the "extreme partisanship that exists in the nation's capital today," suggesting that partisanship is even worse than in the post-Watergate era he inherited.
The nation needs today, as it got in Ford then, a president respected by both Republicans and Democrats who can restore trust in politics. It needs new faces and new ideas if it is to confront advancing crises of war, debt and entitlement reform. And it needs a president who can assume office in 2009 swimming in the political capital that only a mandate can bring. The nation needs a candidate who can win 55% or more.
And that will not happen with a Bush or Clinton on the ballot.
Ronald Wilson Reagan
America's 40th President
Monday, January 22, 2007
Rich Miller: "Obama's rock-star aura reminiscent of JFK"
Obama's rock-star aura reminiscent of JFK
January 22, 2007
My grandmother tells the story of when she met John F. Kennedy.
It was back in 1959, as Kennedy still was gearing up for his presidential run.
Grandma and my grandfather, an active Teamsters Union member and a Democratic precinct committeeman in Kankakee, traveled to Chicago for a labor event featuring JFK.
Kennedy, the story goes, was working the room, and when he made it over to my grandparents, he put his arm around my grandmother, kissed her on the cheek and told my grandfather that he had a "beautiful wife."
Grandma swooned, of course, and decades later when I asked her how she reacted, she joked that she didn't wash that kissed spot on her face for two weeks. To this day, you can't say a bad word about JFK in front of Grandma for fear of risking the evil eye.
I dearly love my grandmother, and I owe my storytelling ability to her genes and her example, but it's impossible to say that Grandma's love for JFK is rational. Good looks, extraordinary charisma and a unique personal contact that left a lifelong impression fuels her undying loyalty.
I told you this story because it seems to me that a sizable chunk of this country is embarking on a similarly intense love for our very own Barack Obama. Our U.S. Senator's announcement last week that he was considering a run for president set off an explosion that had been building for months. Grown men wept. Hard-boiled political reporters gushed exuberance. I've never seen anything like it.
This Obama phenomenon is not rational in any form. It is, in fact, almost completely irrational.
As the skeptics continually point out, average Obama supporters know very little about the man they adore. But I've noticed that the more exposure he gets, the more people swoon over him. In some ways he's been able to accomplish on a fairly wide scale what JFK did with my Grandma at that union gathering in Chicago. Millions are personally smitten, and, at least for now, there's no reasoning with them on this topic.
He's inexperienced? That's a good thing. He's black in a nation that still has a lot of bigots? It won't matter and actually may help. He's politically untested? He'll get all the seasoning he needs on the campaign trail. On and on it goes.
The question everybody -- including his fans -- asks is, "Will this last?" Of course, we have no way of divining the future. Lots of things can happen.
National campaigns in this country have been exceedingly brutal, near-libelous affairs almost from Day One. And that old saying has been whispering itself in the back of my mind lately: "The bigger they come, the harder they fall."
As far as Obama's immediate political future goes, the only thing we may have to go on here is recent Illinois history.
Obama is as popular -- perhaps more so -- in Illinois today as he was when he was first elected to the U.S. Senate in an historic landslide more than two years ago.
His style doesn't seem to wear thin. His schtick still seems fresh. His local enemies, amazingly few in number, haven't been able to make a dent and manage only to look petty and mean when they do speak. His Tony Rezko real estate "scandal" appeared to deepen his respect among the populous when he owned up and publicly apologized.
Because nobody ever apologizes for anything in American politics, the swoon continued unabated.
I can't tell you if Obama will win the presidency or even the nomination. Who knows what those oddball Iowans and those idiosyncratic New Hampshireites will do? His liberal voting record -- both in Springfield and Washington, D.C. -- won't be much of a problem in the primary, but perhaps the Republicans can use it to break the spell in the fall if Obama makes it that far.
And then there is our hopelessly juvenile and inane national press corps, which will take a single sentence -- even a single word -- and gleefully attempt to define an entire lifetime of work, like children in a school yard.
Even so, if my grandmother can still be in love with John F. Kennedy after almost 50 years, maybe Obama can make it through the next 22 months.
January 22, 2007
My grandmother tells the story of when she met John F. Kennedy.
It was back in 1959, as Kennedy still was gearing up for his presidential run.
Grandma and my grandfather, an active Teamsters Union member and a Democratic precinct committeeman in Kankakee, traveled to Chicago for a labor event featuring JFK.
Kennedy, the story goes, was working the room, and when he made it over to my grandparents, he put his arm around my grandmother, kissed her on the cheek and told my grandfather that he had a "beautiful wife."
Grandma swooned, of course, and decades later when I asked her how she reacted, she joked that she didn't wash that kissed spot on her face for two weeks. To this day, you can't say a bad word about JFK in front of Grandma for fear of risking the evil eye.
I dearly love my grandmother, and I owe my storytelling ability to her genes and her example, but it's impossible to say that Grandma's love for JFK is rational. Good looks, extraordinary charisma and a unique personal contact that left a lifelong impression fuels her undying loyalty.
I told you this story because it seems to me that a sizable chunk of this country is embarking on a similarly intense love for our very own Barack Obama. Our U.S. Senator's announcement last week that he was considering a run for president set off an explosion that had been building for months. Grown men wept. Hard-boiled political reporters gushed exuberance. I've never seen anything like it.
This Obama phenomenon is not rational in any form. It is, in fact, almost completely irrational.
As the skeptics continually point out, average Obama supporters know very little about the man they adore. But I've noticed that the more exposure he gets, the more people swoon over him. In some ways he's been able to accomplish on a fairly wide scale what JFK did with my Grandma at that union gathering in Chicago. Millions are personally smitten, and, at least for now, there's no reasoning with them on this topic.
He's inexperienced? That's a good thing. He's black in a nation that still has a lot of bigots? It won't matter and actually may help. He's politically untested? He'll get all the seasoning he needs on the campaign trail. On and on it goes.
The question everybody -- including his fans -- asks is, "Will this last?" Of course, we have no way of divining the future. Lots of things can happen.
National campaigns in this country have been exceedingly brutal, near-libelous affairs almost from Day One. And that old saying has been whispering itself in the back of my mind lately: "The bigger they come, the harder they fall."
As far as Obama's immediate political future goes, the only thing we may have to go on here is recent Illinois history.
Obama is as popular -- perhaps more so -- in Illinois today as he was when he was first elected to the U.S. Senate in an historic landslide more than two years ago.
His style doesn't seem to wear thin. His schtick still seems fresh. His local enemies, amazingly few in number, haven't been able to make a dent and manage only to look petty and mean when they do speak. His Tony Rezko real estate "scandal" appeared to deepen his respect among the populous when he owned up and publicly apologized.
Because nobody ever apologizes for anything in American politics, the swoon continued unabated.
I can't tell you if Obama will win the presidency or even the nomination. Who knows what those oddball Iowans and those idiosyncratic New Hampshireites will do? His liberal voting record -- both in Springfield and Washington, D.C. -- won't be much of a problem in the primary, but perhaps the Republicans can use it to break the spell in the fall if Obama makes it that far.
And then there is our hopelessly juvenile and inane national press corps, which will take a single sentence -- even a single word -- and gleefully attempt to define an entire lifetime of work, like children in a school yard.
Even so, if my grandmother can still be in love with John F. Kennedy after almost 50 years, maybe Obama can make it through the next 22 months.
NY Times: Bill Richardson Enters ’08 Field
January 21, 2007
Bill Richardson Enters ’08 Field
By CHRISTINE HAUSER
Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico jumped into the 2008 presidential race today, announcing that he had formed a campaign exploratory committee in order to seek the Democratic nomination.
“I am taking this step because we have to repair the damage that’s been done to our country over the last six years,” Mr. Richardson said in a statement. “Our reputation in the world is diminished, our economy has languished, and civility and common decency in government has perished.”
He highlighted his experience, from United Nations ambassador to state governor, as making him uniquely positioned to tackle a range of international and domestic tasks, from getting American troops out of Iraq to improving the economy and energy independence.
“I can bring this country together,” he said on “This Week” on ABC. “I’m a negotiator. I’ve brought countries together closer on peace treaties. I’ve rescued Americans, hostages and servicemen.”
“What we have right now is an opportunity to deal with major issues that really are dividing this country,” he said.
The announcement today from Mr. Richardson follows the latest entries into the expanding Democratic field, including Senator Barack Obama of Illinois and Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, who entered the race on Saturday with an e-mail message to supporters that said: “I’m in. And I’m in to win.”
The Democrats now square off in what is effectively the party’s first primary, the competition for campaign donations.
Asked today on “This Week” how he would “break through” the presence of the other contenders, Mr. Richardson said that he would “outwork anybody” and that he believed he could be competitive in raising money.
”I’m a governor,” he continued. “Governors have good records in being elected presidents, because we balance budgets, we deal with health care, with education.”
“I believe also that I’m a Westerner,” Mr. Richardson went on. “This is a new area that is fertile for the Democratic Party.”
The prospective field also includes John Edwards, the former senator from North Carolina; Senator Joseph R. Biden of Delaware; former Gov. Tom Vilsack of Iowa; Representative Dennis J. Kucinich of Ohio, and Senator Christopher J. Dodd of Connecticut.
And joining what is expected to be a crowded field of Republican hopefuls, Senator Sam Brownback, Republican of Kansas, announced his candidacy for president on Saturday, facing off in what is expected to be a crowded fielding including Senator John McCain of Arizona and Rudolph W. Giuliani, the former mayor of New York.
Mr. Richardson has served as a congressman, as well as United Nations ambassador and energy secretary under President Bill Clinton. Today, he emphasized his international experience in his announcement that he would seek the nomination, saying that as United Nations ambassador, he worked to build alliances and help prevent the development of nuclear weapons in North Korea.
Just this month, he went to Sudan on behalf of the Save Darfur Coalition of groups trying to stem the violence in Darfur, to try to break the deadlock over who would police the region. President Omar Hassan al-Bashir of Sudan and leaders of several rebel factions in Darfur agreed to a 60-day cease-fire in separate meetings with Mr. Richardson.
Mr. Richardson, who last year helped negotiate the release of an American journalist charged with espionage in Sudan, has international contacts made as ambassador in the Clinton administration.
Mr. Richardson has been nominated four times for the Nobel Peace Prize for negotiating the release of hostages, American servicemen and political prisoners in North Korea, Iraq and Cuba, according to his statement.
“The next president of the United States must get our troops out of Iraq without delay,” Mr. Richardson said. “Before I became governor of New Mexico, I served as ambassador to the United Nations and as secretary of energy. I know the Middle East well and it’s clear that our presence in Iraq isn’t helping any longer.”
He said he had set up an exploratory committee that will allow him to begin raising money and assembling his campaign organization.
He also highlighted domestic issues.
“On issues like the environment, jobs, and health care, state governments are leading the way,” he added. “And that’s because we can’t be partisan or we won’t get our jobs done.”
Today, Mr. Richardson outlined his strategy for what is likely to be the prominent campaign issue — American involvement in Iraq.
Mr. Richardson said a timetable needed to be established for the Iraqis to handle their own security, as well as setting up national reconciliation talks among Sunni Arabs, Shiites and Kurds. Talks with Iran and Syria were also needed, he said.
“What we need to do is bring their neighbors in, bring regional powers as part of the solution,” he said in the ABC interview. “Set up a reconstruction effort to help Iraq achieve civil administration and build up its resources.”
Mr. Richardson would be the first Hispanic president if he won. But he said today on ABC that he would not run as a Hispanic candidate.
“I believe the country would be ready for a woman president, an African-American president, Hispanic president,” he said. “But I wouldn’t run as a Hispanic candidate. I would run as an American, proud to be Hispanic, proud of my heritage.”
Mr. Richardson was born on Nov. 15, 1947, in Pasadena, Calif., to an American father and Mexican mother. He grew up in Mexico City before moving to New England, where he attended high school and college, his announcement said. He graduated from Tuft’s Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy in Massachusetts.
Patrick Healy contributed reporting for this article.
Bill Richardson Enters ’08 Field
By CHRISTINE HAUSER
Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico jumped into the 2008 presidential race today, announcing that he had formed a campaign exploratory committee in order to seek the Democratic nomination.
“I am taking this step because we have to repair the damage that’s been done to our country over the last six years,” Mr. Richardson said in a statement. “Our reputation in the world is diminished, our economy has languished, and civility and common decency in government has perished.”
He highlighted his experience, from United Nations ambassador to state governor, as making him uniquely positioned to tackle a range of international and domestic tasks, from getting American troops out of Iraq to improving the economy and energy independence.
“I can bring this country together,” he said on “This Week” on ABC. “I’m a negotiator. I’ve brought countries together closer on peace treaties. I’ve rescued Americans, hostages and servicemen.”
“What we have right now is an opportunity to deal with major issues that really are dividing this country,” he said.
The announcement today from Mr. Richardson follows the latest entries into the expanding Democratic field, including Senator Barack Obama of Illinois and Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, who entered the race on Saturday with an e-mail message to supporters that said: “I’m in. And I’m in to win.”
The Democrats now square off in what is effectively the party’s first primary, the competition for campaign donations.
Asked today on “This Week” how he would “break through” the presence of the other contenders, Mr. Richardson said that he would “outwork anybody” and that he believed he could be competitive in raising money.
”I’m a governor,” he continued. “Governors have good records in being elected presidents, because we balance budgets, we deal with health care, with education.”
“I believe also that I’m a Westerner,” Mr. Richardson went on. “This is a new area that is fertile for the Democratic Party.”
The prospective field also includes John Edwards, the former senator from North Carolina; Senator Joseph R. Biden of Delaware; former Gov. Tom Vilsack of Iowa; Representative Dennis J. Kucinich of Ohio, and Senator Christopher J. Dodd of Connecticut.
And joining what is expected to be a crowded field of Republican hopefuls, Senator Sam Brownback, Republican of Kansas, announced his candidacy for president on Saturday, facing off in what is expected to be a crowded fielding including Senator John McCain of Arizona and Rudolph W. Giuliani, the former mayor of New York.
Mr. Richardson has served as a congressman, as well as United Nations ambassador and energy secretary under President Bill Clinton. Today, he emphasized his international experience in his announcement that he would seek the nomination, saying that as United Nations ambassador, he worked to build alliances and help prevent the development of nuclear weapons in North Korea.
Just this month, he went to Sudan on behalf of the Save Darfur Coalition of groups trying to stem the violence in Darfur, to try to break the deadlock over who would police the region. President Omar Hassan al-Bashir of Sudan and leaders of several rebel factions in Darfur agreed to a 60-day cease-fire in separate meetings with Mr. Richardson.
Mr. Richardson, who last year helped negotiate the release of an American journalist charged with espionage in Sudan, has international contacts made as ambassador in the Clinton administration.
Mr. Richardson has been nominated four times for the Nobel Peace Prize for negotiating the release of hostages, American servicemen and political prisoners in North Korea, Iraq and Cuba, according to his statement.
“The next president of the United States must get our troops out of Iraq without delay,” Mr. Richardson said. “Before I became governor of New Mexico, I served as ambassador to the United Nations and as secretary of energy. I know the Middle East well and it’s clear that our presence in Iraq isn’t helping any longer.”
He said he had set up an exploratory committee that will allow him to begin raising money and assembling his campaign organization.
He also highlighted domestic issues.
“On issues like the environment, jobs, and health care, state governments are leading the way,” he added. “And that’s because we can’t be partisan or we won’t get our jobs done.”
Today, Mr. Richardson outlined his strategy for what is likely to be the prominent campaign issue — American involvement in Iraq.
Mr. Richardson said a timetable needed to be established for the Iraqis to handle their own security, as well as setting up national reconciliation talks among Sunni Arabs, Shiites and Kurds. Talks with Iran and Syria were also needed, he said.
“What we need to do is bring their neighbors in, bring regional powers as part of the solution,” he said in the ABC interview. “Set up a reconstruction effort to help Iraq achieve civil administration and build up its resources.”
Mr. Richardson would be the first Hispanic president if he won. But he said today on ABC that he would not run as a Hispanic candidate.
“I believe the country would be ready for a woman president, an African-American president, Hispanic president,” he said. “But I wouldn’t run as a Hispanic candidate. I would run as an American, proud to be Hispanic, proud of my heritage.”
Mr. Richardson was born on Nov. 15, 1947, in Pasadena, Calif., to an American father and Mexican mother. He grew up in Mexico City before moving to New England, where he attended high school and college, his announcement said. He graduated from Tuft’s Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy in Massachusetts.
Patrick Healy contributed reporting for this article.
Hillary: "Running scared"
In this piece, the Guardian's Richard Adams holds that Hillary's campaign announcement was a move made by a campaign in trouble- already - imperiled by the campaign of Barack Obama.
Running scared
Hillary Clinton's abrupt announcement on Saturday that she is running for the presidency is a sign that her campaign is already in trouble.
Why did Hillary Clinton announce the start of her presidential campaign without fanfare or build-up? Why did she make the announcement on a Saturday morning, the least news-worthy time of the week? Why did she do it at such short notice that she would not appear on the Sunday morning politics chatshows such as Meet The Press that abound on US television? And why would she do it three days before the president's annual State of the Union address, which will inevitably hog the news pages and bulletins between now and the middle of next week?
The most obvious answer is: panic. Since Barack Obama made his announcement last week, the Clinton camp must have felt a slippage in support, in terms of money and talent, that led it to announce the formation of her exploratory committee so abruptly. The Washington Post's front page article put a positive gloss on the timing by saying: "Her announcement was deliberately timed to come shortly before President Bush's State of the Union address on Tuesday night, campaign advisers said, so she can draw a contrast with the administration's record and help focus attention on the office of the presidency."
The New York Times was less impressed. Inside, in an analysis piece, it wrote: "One reason Mrs. Clinton chose to make her announcement on a Saturday morning, when the political world is usually in slumber, was to dominate the news cycle, her advisers said, and contrast herself vividly as a leader with President Bush before his State of the Union speech on Tuesday night. They waved off the appearance that she was announcing to catch up with Mr Obama, who declared his plans to run on Tuesday. They said they had determined in mid-December that, if Mrs. Clinton decided to run, they would announce the decision on the Saturday before the State of the Union address."
So it was all part of a masterplan? The NYT has a more compelling reason on its front page: the earlier start by Obama was revealing his strength in fundraising. The NYT referred to a recent decision by George Soros - who in the past has backed both Clinton and Obama - to immediately send financial support to Obama in the wake of his announcement. "Soros believes that Senator Obama brings a new energy to the political system and has the potential to be a transformational leader," the NYT quoted Michael Vachon, a spokesman for Soros, as saying. Another weakness of the official line was that Clinton surely needed to get her story straight on Iraq and back further away from her previous position of supporting the US invasion before making this announcement. Instead she has lost the initiative, and Saturday's declaration was an attempt to regain it.
Obama's arrival as a serious rival candidate will make matters far more difficult for Clinton. In the past Hollywood has been a rich vein of funding for both her and her husband's campaigns - but now Obama's star factor is crowding her out on the west coast. Hillary Clinton herself was born in Illinois, and so could have expected that to be a natural fundraising base. But of course Illinois is the state represented in the senate by Obama, closing another group of potential chequebooks.
In any case, the stage is now set. The Democratic nomination will be won by one of the three leading candidates: Clinton, Obama or John Edwards. All three are strong candidates and effective campaigners. But the fact that there are three spells disaster for Hillary Clinton. Her biggest rival is Obama, and if Saturday's announcement was the product of a reaction to his recent success, then her chances may be fading by the day.
Running scared
Hillary Clinton's abrupt announcement on Saturday that she is running for the presidency is a sign that her campaign is already in trouble.
Why did Hillary Clinton announce the start of her presidential campaign without fanfare or build-up? Why did she make the announcement on a Saturday morning, the least news-worthy time of the week? Why did she do it at such short notice that she would not appear on the Sunday morning politics chatshows such as Meet The Press that abound on US television? And why would she do it three days before the president's annual State of the Union address, which will inevitably hog the news pages and bulletins between now and the middle of next week?
The most obvious answer is: panic. Since Barack Obama made his announcement last week, the Clinton camp must have felt a slippage in support, in terms of money and talent, that led it to announce the formation of her exploratory committee so abruptly. The Washington Post's front page article put a positive gloss on the timing by saying: "Her announcement was deliberately timed to come shortly before President Bush's State of the Union address on Tuesday night, campaign advisers said, so she can draw a contrast with the administration's record and help focus attention on the office of the presidency."
The New York Times was less impressed. Inside, in an analysis piece, it wrote: "One reason Mrs. Clinton chose to make her announcement on a Saturday morning, when the political world is usually in slumber, was to dominate the news cycle, her advisers said, and contrast herself vividly as a leader with President Bush before his State of the Union speech on Tuesday night. They waved off the appearance that she was announcing to catch up with Mr Obama, who declared his plans to run on Tuesday. They said they had determined in mid-December that, if Mrs. Clinton decided to run, they would announce the decision on the Saturday before the State of the Union address."
So it was all part of a masterplan? The NYT has a more compelling reason on its front page: the earlier start by Obama was revealing his strength in fundraising. The NYT referred to a recent decision by George Soros - who in the past has backed both Clinton and Obama - to immediately send financial support to Obama in the wake of his announcement. "Soros believes that Senator Obama brings a new energy to the political system and has the potential to be a transformational leader," the NYT quoted Michael Vachon, a spokesman for Soros, as saying. Another weakness of the official line was that Clinton surely needed to get her story straight on Iraq and back further away from her previous position of supporting the US invasion before making this announcement. Instead she has lost the initiative, and Saturday's declaration was an attempt to regain it.
Obama's arrival as a serious rival candidate will make matters far more difficult for Clinton. In the past Hollywood has been a rich vein of funding for both her and her husband's campaigns - but now Obama's star factor is crowding her out on the west coast. Hillary Clinton herself was born in Illinois, and so could have expected that to be a natural fundraising base. But of course Illinois is the state represented in the senate by Obama, closing another group of potential chequebooks.
In any case, the stage is now set. The Democratic nomination will be won by one of the three leading candidates: Clinton, Obama or John Edwards. All three are strong candidates and effective campaigners. But the fact that there are three spells disaster for Hillary Clinton. Her biggest rival is Obama, and if Saturday's announcement was the product of a reaction to his recent success, then her chances may be fading by the day.
Sunday, January 21, 2007
Philly Inquirer: "Romney : Seriously great, but with baggage"
One Last Thing
Romney : Seriously great, but with baggage
By Jonathan Last
for the Inquirer
Mitt Romney is The Natural.
As a piece of raw, political horse flesh, the former Republican governor of Massachusetts may be one of the great talents of his generation: good-looking, whip-smart, funny, charismatic, and, by nearly every account, a genuinely decent man. All of which - plus his personal fortune, reportedly in the hundreds of millions - makes him a formidable candidate for the Republican nomination.
Romney is a moderate, yet he decided to position himself on the conservative side of the draw as he runs for president. Smart politics. It means that, in the early phases of the nomination fight, he will be jousting with second-tier candidates such as Sam Brownback and Newt Gingrich instead of fighting for space with the two moderate heavyweights: John McCain and Rudy Giuliani.
But Romney's conservative strategy hit its first speed bump recently when footage from his 1994 senatorial debate with Ted Kennedy appeared on the Internet. In that race, Romney was attempting to position himself as a more competent version of Kennedy himself. So when Kennedy tried to paint Romney as a Reagan-Bush conservative, Romney strenuously objected, saying: "I was an independent during the time of Reagan-Bush. I'm not trying to return to Reagan-Bush."
Asked about affirmative action and discrimination, Romney said that there definitely was a "glass ceiling" holding back women and minorities and that "I believe that public companies and federal agencies should be required to report in their annual 10K the number of minorities and women by income group within the company so we can identify where the glass ceiling is and break through it."
Then there was the matter of abortion. Romney claimed to be a long-standing supporter of it. He said: "I believe that abortion should be safe and legal in this country. I have since the time that my mom took that position when she ran in 1970 as a U.S. Senate candidate. I believe that, since Roe v. Wade has been the law for 20 years, that we should sustain and support it. And I sustain and support that law and the right of a woman to make that choice." When Kennedy quipped that Romney had been "multiple choice" on abortion, Romney defensively retorted: "My mother and my family have been committed to the belief that we can believe as we want, but we will not force our beliefs on others on [abortion]. And you will not see me wavering on that. Or be multiple choice. Thank you very much."
As the video began making the rounds, the Romney camp went into full damage-control mode, trying to reassure conservatives that he had changed his mind and had been, as he delicately put it, "wrong on some issues back then."
You can see why they might be worried: Romney had claimed that his belief in the protection of abortion actually predated Roe - which was handed down in 1973. And in calling for abortion to be "safe" and "legal," he hadn't even added the "rare" fig leaf.
In truth, Romney's pro-life conversion story isn't very compelling. By 2002, when he was running for governor, Romney no longer identified himself as pro-choice. He now says that he realized abortion was wrong in 2004. He was brought to this realization, he says, while examining the issue of stem-cell research.
Moral reasoning on the sanctity of life does not typically flow in that direction. It's a bit like an atheist being brought to Christianity on the strength of Intelligent Design theory.
(For whatever it's worth, Romney also now puts Reagan on his list of great and admirable presidents.)
But conservatives probably have little to worry about with Romney. As a politician, he has proven that, when he makes a promise to a constituency, he sticks. For instance, when he was running for governor in 2002, he may have been having misgivings about abortion, but Romney promised voters that he would have a "moratorium" on state abortion law and wouldn't try to change it.
And even when he realized that abortion was morally repugnant, two years later, he kept his word on the "moratorium."
If there is a conservative concern about Romney, it shouldn't be with his ideological moorings, but rather with his electoral record.
Romney has one primary victory to his credit (from 1994, when he captured the Republican senatorial nomination) and one general-election victory (his 2002 gubernatorial win). Against that, he lost his 1994 Senate campaign, did not have a primary opponent in 2002, and withdrew from seeking reelection in 2006 because he had almost no chance of winning. Republicans might wonder how Romney will fare against Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama in Wisconsin, Minnesota, Florida and Pennsylvania when he couldn't handle rookie candidate Deval Patrick as an incumbent governor in Massachusetts.
But great politicians are able to work around such worries - and Romney is a seriously great politician. In fact, he might well be the GOP's Bill Clinton, only without the personal baggage. Should Republicans decide they need a Clinton to beat a Clinton in 2008, then Romney could be their man.
One Last Thing
For Mitt Romney's senatorial debates with Ted Kennedy, go to http://go.philly.com/romney
Romney : Seriously great, but with baggage
By Jonathan Last
for the Inquirer
Mitt Romney is The Natural.
As a piece of raw, political horse flesh, the former Republican governor of Massachusetts may be one of the great talents of his generation: good-looking, whip-smart, funny, charismatic, and, by nearly every account, a genuinely decent man. All of which - plus his personal fortune, reportedly in the hundreds of millions - makes him a formidable candidate for the Republican nomination.
Romney is a moderate, yet he decided to position himself on the conservative side of the draw as he runs for president. Smart politics. It means that, in the early phases of the nomination fight, he will be jousting with second-tier candidates such as Sam Brownback and Newt Gingrich instead of fighting for space with the two moderate heavyweights: John McCain and Rudy Giuliani.
But Romney's conservative strategy hit its first speed bump recently when footage from his 1994 senatorial debate with Ted Kennedy appeared on the Internet. In that race, Romney was attempting to position himself as a more competent version of Kennedy himself. So when Kennedy tried to paint Romney as a Reagan-Bush conservative, Romney strenuously objected, saying: "I was an independent during the time of Reagan-Bush. I'm not trying to return to Reagan-Bush."
Asked about affirmative action and discrimination, Romney said that there definitely was a "glass ceiling" holding back women and minorities and that "I believe that public companies and federal agencies should be required to report in their annual 10K the number of minorities and women by income group within the company so we can identify where the glass ceiling is and break through it."
Then there was the matter of abortion. Romney claimed to be a long-standing supporter of it. He said: "I believe that abortion should be safe and legal in this country. I have since the time that my mom took that position when she ran in 1970 as a U.S. Senate candidate. I believe that, since Roe v. Wade has been the law for 20 years, that we should sustain and support it. And I sustain and support that law and the right of a woman to make that choice." When Kennedy quipped that Romney had been "multiple choice" on abortion, Romney defensively retorted: "My mother and my family have been committed to the belief that we can believe as we want, but we will not force our beliefs on others on [abortion]. And you will not see me wavering on that. Or be multiple choice. Thank you very much."
As the video began making the rounds, the Romney camp went into full damage-control mode, trying to reassure conservatives that he had changed his mind and had been, as he delicately put it, "wrong on some issues back then."
You can see why they might be worried: Romney had claimed that his belief in the protection of abortion actually predated Roe - which was handed down in 1973. And in calling for abortion to be "safe" and "legal," he hadn't even added the "rare" fig leaf.
In truth, Romney's pro-life conversion story isn't very compelling. By 2002, when he was running for governor, Romney no longer identified himself as pro-choice. He now says that he realized abortion was wrong in 2004. He was brought to this realization, he says, while examining the issue of stem-cell research.
Moral reasoning on the sanctity of life does not typically flow in that direction. It's a bit like an atheist being brought to Christianity on the strength of Intelligent Design theory.
(For whatever it's worth, Romney also now puts Reagan on his list of great and admirable presidents.)
But conservatives probably have little to worry about with Romney. As a politician, he has proven that, when he makes a promise to a constituency, he sticks. For instance, when he was running for governor in 2002, he may have been having misgivings about abortion, but Romney promised voters that he would have a "moratorium" on state abortion law and wouldn't try to change it.
And even when he realized that abortion was morally repugnant, two years later, he kept his word on the "moratorium."
If there is a conservative concern about Romney, it shouldn't be with his ideological moorings, but rather with his electoral record.
Romney has one primary victory to his credit (from 1994, when he captured the Republican senatorial nomination) and one general-election victory (his 2002 gubernatorial win). Against that, he lost his 1994 Senate campaign, did not have a primary opponent in 2002, and withdrew from seeking reelection in 2006 because he had almost no chance of winning. Republicans might wonder how Romney will fare against Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama in Wisconsin, Minnesota, Florida and Pennsylvania when he couldn't handle rookie candidate Deval Patrick as an incumbent governor in Massachusetts.
But great politicians are able to work around such worries - and Romney is a seriously great politician. In fact, he might well be the GOP's Bill Clinton, only without the personal baggage. Should Republicans decide they need a Clinton to beat a Clinton in 2008, then Romney could be their man.
One Last Thing
For Mitt Romney's senatorial debates with Ted Kennedy, go to http://go.philly.com/romney
Saturday, January 20, 2007
Washington Post Poll: Clinton, Giuliani lead primary fields
Post-ABC Poll: Clinton, Giuliani Lead Primary Fields
On the day that Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton officially entered the 2008 presidential sweepstakes, a new Washington Post-ABC News survey shows her with a wide lead over her potential Democratic rivals.
Clinton took 41 percent in a hypothetical primary field against 12 other Democrats, far ahead of Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) at 17 percent, former Sen. John Edwards (N.C) at 11 percent and former Vice President Al Gore at 10 percent. The party's 2004 nominee -- Sen. John Kerry (Mass.) -- received 8 percent support. No other candidate crested three percent.
Those numbers are virtually unchanged from a Post-ABC survey in December that showed Clinton at 39 percent, Obama at 17 percent and Edwards at 12 percent.
"This poll confirms Hillary Clinton's early frontrunner status among likely contenders for the Democratic nomination," said Post polling director Jon Cohen. "It also indicates how little the intense media speculation and intrigue about Barack Obama's candidacy over the past month has increased his standing among Democrats nationally."
On the Republican side, former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani held a 34 percent to 27 percent lead over Sen. John McCain (Ariz.), with no other potential candidate registering in double digits. Former Gov. Mitt Romney (Mass.) and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (Ga.) took nine percent each. Sen. Sam Brownback, who formally entered the race today, stood at one percent in the poll.
The poll was in the field from Jan. 16-19. It tested 561 Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents and 344 Republicans and Republican-leaning independents. The Democratic numbers have a four percent margin of error; the Republican side has a 5 percent margin of error.
The topline information on the two 2008 primary questions is on the next page.
24. (ASKED OF LEANED DEMOCRATS) If the 2008 Democratic presidential primary or caucus in your state were being held today, and the candidates were: (Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, Barack Obama, John Kerry, Al Gore, Wesley Clark, Tom Vilsack, Bill Richardson, Joe Biden, Chris Dodd, Dennis Kucinich, or Mike Gravel), for whom would you vote?
NET LEANED VOTE: 1/19/07 12/11/06
Hillary Clinton 41 39
Barack Obama 17 17
John Edwards 11 12
Al Gore 10 10
John Kerry 8 7
Joe Biden 3 2
Wesley Clark 1 1
Bill Richardson 1 2
Dennis Kucinich 1 NA
Chris Dodd * *
Mike Gravel * NA
Tom Vilsack * 1
Other (vol.) 1 *
None of these (vol.) 2 2
Would not vote (vol.) * 1
Evan Bayh NA 1
No opinion 3 4
This Washington Post-ABC News poll was conducted by telephone January 16-19, 2007, among a random national sample of 1,000 adults. Overall the results have a three-point error margin; the results for this question have a 4-point error margin. Sampling, data collection and tabulation by TNS of Horsham, PA.
25. (ASKED OF LEANED REPUBLICANS) If the 2008 Republican presidential primary or caucus in your state were being held today, and the candidates were: (Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, Chuck Hagel, Tommy Thompson, Mike Huckabee, Duncan Hunter, George Pataki, Sam Brownback, Tom Tancredo, Jim Gilmore, or Ron Paul), for whom would you vote?
NET LEANED VOTE: 1/19/07 12/11/06
Rudy Giuliani 34 34
John McCain 27 26
Mitt Romney 9 5
Newt Gingrich 9 12
George Pataki 2 3
Sam Brownback 1 1
Jim Gilmore 1 NA
Mike Huckabee 1 *
Ron Paul 1 NA
Tom Tancredo 1 *
Tommy Thompson 1 2
Chuck Hagel * *
Duncan Hunter * 1
Other (vol.) * *
None of these (vol.) 2 6
Would not vote (vol.) 1 *
No opinion 9 9
This Washington Post-ABC News poll was conducted by telephone January 16-19, 2007, among a random national sample of 1,000 adults. Overall the results have a three-point error margin; the results for this question have a five-point error margin. Sampling, data collection and tabulation by TNS of Horsham, PA.
On the day that Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton officially entered the 2008 presidential sweepstakes, a new Washington Post-ABC News survey shows her with a wide lead over her potential Democratic rivals.
Clinton took 41 percent in a hypothetical primary field against 12 other Democrats, far ahead of Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) at 17 percent, former Sen. John Edwards (N.C) at 11 percent and former Vice President Al Gore at 10 percent. The party's 2004 nominee -- Sen. John Kerry (Mass.) -- received 8 percent support. No other candidate crested three percent.
Those numbers are virtually unchanged from a Post-ABC survey in December that showed Clinton at 39 percent, Obama at 17 percent and Edwards at 12 percent.
"This poll confirms Hillary Clinton's early frontrunner status among likely contenders for the Democratic nomination," said Post polling director Jon Cohen. "It also indicates how little the intense media speculation and intrigue about Barack Obama's candidacy over the past month has increased his standing among Democrats nationally."
On the Republican side, former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani held a 34 percent to 27 percent lead over Sen. John McCain (Ariz.), with no other potential candidate registering in double digits. Former Gov. Mitt Romney (Mass.) and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (Ga.) took nine percent each. Sen. Sam Brownback, who formally entered the race today, stood at one percent in the poll.
The poll was in the field from Jan. 16-19. It tested 561 Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents and 344 Republicans and Republican-leaning independents. The Democratic numbers have a four percent margin of error; the Republican side has a 5 percent margin of error.
The topline information on the two 2008 primary questions is on the next page.
24. (ASKED OF LEANED DEMOCRATS) If the 2008 Democratic presidential primary or caucus in your state were being held today, and the candidates were: (Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, Barack Obama, John Kerry, Al Gore, Wesley Clark, Tom Vilsack, Bill Richardson, Joe Biden, Chris Dodd, Dennis Kucinich, or Mike Gravel), for whom would you vote?
NET LEANED VOTE: 1/19/07 12/11/06
Hillary Clinton 41 39
Barack Obama 17 17
John Edwards 11 12
Al Gore 10 10
John Kerry 8 7
Joe Biden 3 2
Wesley Clark 1 1
Bill Richardson 1 2
Dennis Kucinich 1 NA
Chris Dodd * *
Mike Gravel * NA
Tom Vilsack * 1
Other (vol.) 1 *
None of these (vol.) 2 2
Would not vote (vol.) * 1
Evan Bayh NA 1
No opinion 3 4
This Washington Post-ABC News poll was conducted by telephone January 16-19, 2007, among a random national sample of 1,000 adults. Overall the results have a three-point error margin; the results for this question have a 4-point error margin. Sampling, data collection and tabulation by TNS of Horsham, PA.
25. (ASKED OF LEANED REPUBLICANS) If the 2008 Republican presidential primary or caucus in your state were being held today, and the candidates were: (Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, Chuck Hagel, Tommy Thompson, Mike Huckabee, Duncan Hunter, George Pataki, Sam Brownback, Tom Tancredo, Jim Gilmore, or Ron Paul), for whom would you vote?
NET LEANED VOTE: 1/19/07 12/11/06
Rudy Giuliani 34 34
John McCain 27 26
Mitt Romney 9 5
Newt Gingrich 9 12
George Pataki 2 3
Sam Brownback 1 1
Jim Gilmore 1 NA
Mike Huckabee 1 *
Ron Paul 1 NA
Tom Tancredo 1 *
Tommy Thompson 1 2
Chuck Hagel * *
Duncan Hunter * 1
Other (vol.) * *
None of these (vol.) 2 6
Would not vote (vol.) 1 *
No opinion 9 9
This Washington Post-ABC News poll was conducted by telephone January 16-19, 2007, among a random national sample of 1,000 adults. Overall the results have a three-point error margin; the results for this question have a five-point error margin. Sampling, data collection and tabulation by TNS of Horsham, PA.
Clinton: 'I'm in to win' White House
Clinton: 'I'm in to win' White House
By BETH FOUHY, Associated Press Writer
Sat Jan 20, 6:34 PM ET
Democratic Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton launched a trailblazing campaign for the White House on Saturday, a former first lady turned political powerhouse intent on becoming the first female president. "I'm in, and I'm in to win," she said.
In a videotaped message posted on her Web site, Clinton said she was eager to start a dialogue with voters about challenges she hoped to tackle as president — affordable health care, deficit reduction and bringing the "right" end to the Iraq war.
"I'm not just starting a campaign, though, I'm beginning a conversation with you, with America," she said. "Let's talk. Let's chat. The conversation in Washington has been just a little one-sided lately, don't you think?"
Clinton's announcement, while widely anticipated, was nonetheless historic in a fast-developing campaign that has already seen the emergence of a formidable black contender, Democratic Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois.
In an instant, Clinton became the most credible female candidate ever to seek the presidency and the first presidential spouse to attempt to return to the White House in her own right. Her husband, Bill, served two terms as president from 1993 to 2001.
"I am one of the millions of women who have waited all their lives to see the first woman sworn in as president of the United States — and now we have our best opportunity to see that dream fulfilled," said Ellen Malcolm, president of EMILY's list, which raises money for Democratic women who run for office.
With her immense star power, vast network of supporters and donors and seasoned team of political advisers, the 59-year-old Clinton long has topped every national poll of potential Democratic contenders.
But since joining the field, Obama has secured the backing of a number of prominent fundraisers, including billionaire philanthropist George Soros, stepping up the pressure on Clinton to disclose her plans.
Her controversial tenure as first lady left her a deeply polarizing figure among voters, leading many Democrats to doubt Clinton's viability in a general election.
In a detailed statement posted on her Web site, Clinton sought to acknowledge and bat away such doubts.
"I have never been afraid to stand up for what I believe in or to face down the Republican machine," she wrote. "After nearly $70 million spent against my campaigns in New York and two landslide wins, I can say I know how Washington Republicans think, how they operate and how to beat them."
Recently, Clinton has clashed with many in her own party over the Iraq war.
Clinton supported the 2002 resolution authorizing military intervention in Iraq. She has refused to recant her vote or call for a deadline for the removal of troops. She has announced her opposition to President Bush's troop increase in Iraq and has introduced legislation capping troop levels.
"A woman candidate could find it easier to run in peacetime, rather than wartime, but Senator Clinton's tried to position herself as a serious person on national security," said Andrew Polsky, a presidential historian at Hunter College. "But that means she's staked out difficult position on the war that won't make it easy for her to get the Democratic nomination."
With a $14 million campaign treasury, Clinton starts with an impressive fundraising advantage over the rest of the Democratic field. But Obama and others have started to secure fundraising commitments from New York, California and other deep-pocketed, Clinton-friendly areas.
Her creation of a presidential exploratory committee, announced Saturday, allows her to raise money for the campaign; she already has lined up campaign staff.
In tone and substance, Clinton's videotaped announcement recalled her first Senate race in New York in 2000, where she conducted a "listening tour" of the state's 62 counties before formally entering the contest.
She promised a three-day series of Web chats with voters beginning Monday and prepared a campaign swing late this coming week through the early voting state of Iowa, while a visit to New Hampshire was in the works.
On Sunday, New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson was also set to enter the Democratic field; if elected, he would be the first Hispanic president.
For the short term at least, the outsized candidacies of Clinton and Obama were expected to soak up the lion's share of attention.
Obama, who launched his own presidential committee on Tuesday, praised Clinton as a friend and colleague.
"I welcome her and all the candidates, not as competitors, but as allies in the work of getting our country back on track," he said in a statement.
Campaigning in New Hampshire, Connecticut Sen. Chris Dodd did not comment specifically on Clinton's announcement, but said: "I'm not one for exploratory committees. You're in or you're not."
Other Democratic contenders include former Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack; Ohio Rep. Dennis Kucinich and former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards, the party's 2004 vice-presidential nominee. Delaware Sen. Joe Biden has said he will run and planned to formalize his intentions soon. Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry, the party's 2004 standard bearer, is also contemplating another run.
An influential player in her husband's political career in Arkansas, Hillary Clinton leapt to the national scene during the 1992 presidential campaign when husband and wife fought to survive the scandal over Gennifer Flowers' allegations of a lengthy affair with Bill Clinton when he was the state's governor.
The Clintons appeared together on CBS' "60 Minutes" to talk about their marriage — Hillary Clinton's first famous "Stand by Your Man" moment.
As first lady, Clinton headed up a disastrous first-term effort to overhaul the health care insurance system. There was more controversy as the couple battled allegations of impropriety over land deals and fundraising, missing records from her former Arkansas law firm and even her quick and hefty profits from an investment in cattle futures.
There was no letup in the second term. The president found himself denying — then admitting — having a sexual relationship with White House intern Monica Lewinsky. As he battled impeachment and possible removal from office, his wife's poll numbers rose.
Her own political career began to take shape in late 1998 when New York Democrat Daniel Patrick Moynihan announced he would not seek re-election to the Senate seat he had held since 1976.
The campaign trail was not always friendly. For almost every cheer, there was a shouted "Go home, Hillary!" and the emerging Republican theme that carpetbagger Clinton simply wanted to use New York as a launching pad for a later presidential run.
___
Associated Press Writer Marc Humbert contributed to this report from Albany, N.Y.
___
On the Net:
Hillary Rodham Clinton site: http://www.hillaryclinton.com/
By BETH FOUHY, Associated Press Writer
Sat Jan 20, 6:34 PM ET
Democratic Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton launched a trailblazing campaign for the White House on Saturday, a former first lady turned political powerhouse intent on becoming the first female president. "I'm in, and I'm in to win," she said.
In a videotaped message posted on her Web site, Clinton said she was eager to start a dialogue with voters about challenges she hoped to tackle as president — affordable health care, deficit reduction and bringing the "right" end to the Iraq war.
"I'm not just starting a campaign, though, I'm beginning a conversation with you, with America," she said. "Let's talk. Let's chat. The conversation in Washington has been just a little one-sided lately, don't you think?"
Clinton's announcement, while widely anticipated, was nonetheless historic in a fast-developing campaign that has already seen the emergence of a formidable black contender, Democratic Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois.
In an instant, Clinton became the most credible female candidate ever to seek the presidency and the first presidential spouse to attempt to return to the White House in her own right. Her husband, Bill, served two terms as president from 1993 to 2001.
"I am one of the millions of women who have waited all their lives to see the first woman sworn in as president of the United States — and now we have our best opportunity to see that dream fulfilled," said Ellen Malcolm, president of EMILY's list, which raises money for Democratic women who run for office.
With her immense star power, vast network of supporters and donors and seasoned team of political advisers, the 59-year-old Clinton long has topped every national poll of potential Democratic contenders.
But since joining the field, Obama has secured the backing of a number of prominent fundraisers, including billionaire philanthropist George Soros, stepping up the pressure on Clinton to disclose her plans.
Her controversial tenure as first lady left her a deeply polarizing figure among voters, leading many Democrats to doubt Clinton's viability in a general election.
In a detailed statement posted on her Web site, Clinton sought to acknowledge and bat away such doubts.
"I have never been afraid to stand up for what I believe in or to face down the Republican machine," she wrote. "After nearly $70 million spent against my campaigns in New York and two landslide wins, I can say I know how Washington Republicans think, how they operate and how to beat them."
Recently, Clinton has clashed with many in her own party over the Iraq war.
Clinton supported the 2002 resolution authorizing military intervention in Iraq. She has refused to recant her vote or call for a deadline for the removal of troops. She has announced her opposition to President Bush's troop increase in Iraq and has introduced legislation capping troop levels.
"A woman candidate could find it easier to run in peacetime, rather than wartime, but Senator Clinton's tried to position herself as a serious person on national security," said Andrew Polsky, a presidential historian at Hunter College. "But that means she's staked out difficult position on the war that won't make it easy for her to get the Democratic nomination."
With a $14 million campaign treasury, Clinton starts with an impressive fundraising advantage over the rest of the Democratic field. But Obama and others have started to secure fundraising commitments from New York, California and other deep-pocketed, Clinton-friendly areas.
Her creation of a presidential exploratory committee, announced Saturday, allows her to raise money for the campaign; she already has lined up campaign staff.
In tone and substance, Clinton's videotaped announcement recalled her first Senate race in New York in 2000, where she conducted a "listening tour" of the state's 62 counties before formally entering the contest.
She promised a three-day series of Web chats with voters beginning Monday and prepared a campaign swing late this coming week through the early voting state of Iowa, while a visit to New Hampshire was in the works.
On Sunday, New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson was also set to enter the Democratic field; if elected, he would be the first Hispanic president.
For the short term at least, the outsized candidacies of Clinton and Obama were expected to soak up the lion's share of attention.
Obama, who launched his own presidential committee on Tuesday, praised Clinton as a friend and colleague.
"I welcome her and all the candidates, not as competitors, but as allies in the work of getting our country back on track," he said in a statement.
Campaigning in New Hampshire, Connecticut Sen. Chris Dodd did not comment specifically on Clinton's announcement, but said: "I'm not one for exploratory committees. You're in or you're not."
Other Democratic contenders include former Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack; Ohio Rep. Dennis Kucinich and former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards, the party's 2004 vice-presidential nominee. Delaware Sen. Joe Biden has said he will run and planned to formalize his intentions soon. Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry, the party's 2004 standard bearer, is also contemplating another run.
An influential player in her husband's political career in Arkansas, Hillary Clinton leapt to the national scene during the 1992 presidential campaign when husband and wife fought to survive the scandal over Gennifer Flowers' allegations of a lengthy affair with Bill Clinton when he was the state's governor.
The Clintons appeared together on CBS' "60 Minutes" to talk about their marriage — Hillary Clinton's first famous "Stand by Your Man" moment.
As first lady, Clinton headed up a disastrous first-term effort to overhaul the health care insurance system. There was more controversy as the couple battled allegations of impropriety over land deals and fundraising, missing records from her former Arkansas law firm and even her quick and hefty profits from an investment in cattle futures.
There was no letup in the second term. The president found himself denying — then admitting — having a sexual relationship with White House intern Monica Lewinsky. As he battled impeachment and possible removal from office, his wife's poll numbers rose.
Her own political career began to take shape in late 1998 when New York Democrat Daniel Patrick Moynihan announced he would not seek re-election to the Senate seat he had held since 1976.
The campaign trail was not always friendly. For almost every cheer, there was a shouted "Go home, Hillary!" and the emerging Republican theme that carpetbagger Clinton simply wanted to use New York as a launching pad for a later presidential run.
___
Associated Press Writer Marc Humbert contributed to this report from Albany, N.Y.
___
On the Net:
Hillary Rodham Clinton site: http://www.hillaryclinton.com/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)