SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Right Wing Extremist Thread -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: sandintoes who wrote (35495)5/4/2003 9:46:56 AM
From: Glenn Petersen  Read Replies (3) | Respond to of 59480
 
Hillary in '08, or sooner?

suntimes.com

May 4, 2003

BY ROBERT NOVAK SUN-TIMES COLUMNIST

It is not merely the ranting of radio talk show hosts and their callers.

It is not just daydreaming by political junkies. It's still a long shot, but it really could happen.

Hillary in '04!

No, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York is not about to announce her candidacy for president in 2004, joining the jostling pack of Democratic candidates elbowing each other and participating in their first debate this weekend in South Carolina. Her reputation for keeping secrets is well-known, but everybody believes she is planning to sit out 2004 and aiming for the 2008 election to run for president.

Nevertheless, Hillary could be propelled, without her volition, into next year's presidential election. The prospect of another Bush-Clinton race--with a younger Bush and a female Clinton--generates hope and fear among Democrats and Republicans alike.

Democrats hope that Mrs. Clinton can duplicate nationally her letter-perfect 2000 campaign for the U.S. Senate but fear she could bring on one of the periodic Democratic washouts, in the mold of George McGovern and Walter Mondale. Republicans hope her premature presidential candidacy could mean ridding themselves of the Clintons at long last, but are frightened by her masterful performance in New York.

The former first lady certainly generates far more attention than the pallid band of announced candidates. This weekend's South Carolina debate will not get a fraction of the media exposure Sen. Clinton will command between now and June 9, the publication date of Living History, her memoir of life as first lady. With hints that it will reveal what Hillary really thinks of Monica Lewinsky--and her husband--an instant runaway best seller is promised.

A book, even one with a first printing of 1 million copies, is no substitute for a political campaign. However, it contributes to a mood of "Hillarymania" that may produce a heady concoction when mixed with two political facts of life.

First, there is no superstar among the eight announced Democratic presidential candidates. There is no charismatic young standard bearer in the mold of John F. Kennedy or Bill Clinton or an intriguing, unusual newcomer such as Jimmy Carter. As of today, none of the candidates looks like a winner against George W. Bush.

Second, the Democratic timetable has been moved forward radically, with primary elections earlier and a much higher percentage of delegates to be selected by the end of March.

Those two factors could militate against the usual way the Democratic Party has avoided a deadlock in multi-candidate fields over the past generation. George McGovern in 1972, Jimmy Carter in 1976, Michael Dukakis in 1988 and Bill Clinton in 1992 all started as little-known candidates. But as they won one primary election after another going into the spring, they collected a majority of delegates well before the first gavel opened the national convention.

That could happen again in 2004, but it is much more difficult because of so many primaries compacted early in the year.

Although the odds are still negative, it is now arithmetically possible that no nominee will emerge before the convention begins.

Consider this possible scenario. Rep. Richard Gephardt of Missouri wins the opening round, the caucuses in neighboring Iowa. Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts follows with a victory in the first primary election, in neighboring New Hampshire. South Carolina, the first southern primary, is won by Sen. John Edwards from neighboring North Carolina. Michigan, jumping into the early primary election mix, gives first place to Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut.

Because different winners according to this scenario divide up the primaries, the normal winnowing out process would not occur. If that happens, the Democratic Party will go into its July convention in Boston without a clear winner for the first time since Chicago in 1952 when Illinois Gov. Adlai Stevenson was nominated on the third ballot.

Here looms the brokered convention that journalists and other political junkies have dreamed about for half a century.

Enter Hillary. Assume there has been no economic collapse and President Bush is still riding the crest of military victory in Iraq. Who else would the Democrats turn to but the woman who stood aloof from her husband's escapades, won election in a strange state and then made a mark for herself in the U.S. Senate as a shrewd, industrious freshman member.

It would be an immense gamble for Democrats--the first woman candidate for president and an enormously controversial one at that. Many Republicans anticipate a showdown between Hillary Clinton and George W. Bush as promising the death knell of the Democratic Party. But New Yorkers could remind them of the perils in getting what you wish for.



To: sandintoes who wrote (35495)5/4/2003 11:03:50 AM
From: sandintoes  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 59480
 
Florida Democratic Sen. Bob Graham has the most money so far? Gee, I wonder why? Does Hollywood hate Florida?

Hollywood Slow to Donate to Presidential Campaigns
Friday, May 02, 2003

LOS ANGELES — Democratic presidential hopefuls are heading west, not looking for votes so much as mining for campaign cash from California's mother lode — Hollywood (search).

But most of Hollywood's big stars are keeping their mouths and checkbooks shut.

Sen. John Edwards (search) of North Carolina, one of many aiming to challenge President Bush in 2004, took an early lead in overall fund-raising but has yet to attract any big-name donors in Tinseltown.

"To the extent that you have visible public figures that the American people recognize supporting your campaign, that's helpful. And obviously, there's nobody that's more visible than those involved in the entertainment industry here in Hollywood," Edwards said.

Industry analysts suspect Hollywood stars are waiting for Democratic front-runners to emerge before they put money toward any candidate.

"This is the early courtship phase, when lots of people are having a lot of meals, it's very good for the restaurant industry in Los Angeles, as all the candidates come through town and have conversations with the people who could ultimately back them," said Martin Kaplan, director of the Norman Lear Center in Los Angeles.

But some Hollywood faces are vocalizing support for their picks already.

"I've known Howard Dean (search) now for almost 10 years and it's one reason why he's going to win, because he's a man of his word," said actor and director Rob Reiner.

But Reiner is an exception in his early support of the former Vermont governor, one of the party's most liberal contenders.

"Howard Dean has become somebody who has emerged as someone that, if you're passionate about somebody who says what he thinks, who stands for traditional Democratic values, that he's the guy," Kaplan said.

Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts, another Democratic candidate who could win the nomination based on name recognition, has attracted more muted support and money from celebrities such as Alec Baldwin and Melanie Griffith. Will and Grace star Debra Messing recently hosted a fund-raiser for Al Gore's 2000 running mate and current presidential hopeful, Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut.

Kerry has raked in the most from Hollywood so far, with Dick Gephardt, the congressman from Missouri, not far behind. Edwards is the third biggest recipient of the industry's money.

As of March 31, Kerry's campaign had received over $159,000 from television, music, and movie businesses. The senator has over $7 million in campaign funds, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

The entertainment industry is ranked in the top five when it comes to political donations, making rubbing elbows at celebrity fundraisers more than just a glamorous way to get publicity.

Gephardt has received over $101,000 from television, music, and movie businesses, as of March 31, CRP reports, making that industry the fifth largest donor to this candidate. The former House Democratic leader has almost $6 million in his war chest.

Edwards has about $7.4 million in his war chest, $74,500 of which is from the entertainment industry. That industry ranks ninth on the list of Edwards' top industry contributors.

Dean has over $2.6 million on hand, $64,710 of which is from Hollywood, making it the sixth-largest contributor to the former governor's campaign.

Lieberman, who has infuriated many in the entertainment industry for his hard-line stance against violence in movies, video games and song lyrics, has received almost $30,000 of his total $3 million in contributions so far from Hollywood, making that industry his 14th-largest contributor.

Florida Democratic Sen. Bob Graham has been the beneficiary of almost $11,000 from that industry. He has a little over $1.1 million in campaign funds.

According to the Center for Responsive Politics, corporations like Goldman Sachs, Lehman Brothers, Anheuser-Busch and AOL Time Warner are in the top 25 for the top donors to Democratic presidential candidates. But with its deep pockets, Hollywood's rich and famous can provide a vital boost to a campaign by both showing their faces and their checkbooks.


Fox News' Liza Porteus and Anita Vogel contributed to this report.

foxnews.com