Did Hillary bank on Kerry losing in 2004 ?

OK the Hillary machine is rolling on and so far its looks like that nobody will be able to stop her from clinching the demcratic nomination all of which leads me to some some questions.
Did Hillary rely on Kerry losing in 2004 ?
Did Hillary know that Kerry was a crappy candidate and that his campaign would be poorly managed ?

Of course I am posting this thread with the benefit of hindsight but given that nobody just makes a bid for there party nomination I think that these questions are worth asking .
Here is my take.
Hillary and her brains trust must have had some clues that Kerry one issue campaign would come unstuck and that she could wait a few more years before declaring her hand . The extra time will have given Hillary to put the machinery in place that is now propelling her towards the nomination. Also the Iraq issue hadn't come to the fore yet so Hillary could sit back and watch the Republican party dig there own grave.

What would have Hillary done if she thought that Kerry was an winning candidate ?
Would she have run or risked putting off her White House bid for eight years ?
For the sake of discussion I reckon that Hillary would have ran or in the very least positioned herself to play a key role in Congress or maybe even a cabinet position.

I think that Hillary Clinton and her people did know that John Kerry would lose in '04. Let me see if I can break this down real quick.

1. Bush's first term in office ended with good economic numbers and a shot of adrenaline, thanks to the 9/11 attacks.

The simple fact of the matter is that Bush's bump was too big. Hillary herself wouldhave lost to bush under those conditions.

2. John Kerry was not a media-friendly personality. He rubbed people the wrong way just by being himself.

In many respects, Kerry planted the seeds of his own failure. His disingenuous nature, combined with the fact that many of his Vietnam claims turned out be...dubious...meant that Hillary was not going to deal with him later.

Bush43, no matter what happened in his second term, was done at the end of '08. Hillary herself has a definite "shelf life." It's now or never. We're never going to know what she would've done if he had been a better class of candidate. Chances are that she may have taken steps in early 2000 to subvert him, or to put a different spin on his political career so that he posed no threat later on.

[edit on 30-8-2007 by Justin Oldham]

In 2004, there wasn't anyone going to beat Bush. The guy was practically untouchable. He didn't start the decline until after Katrina hit... Katrina was Bush's Waterloo in my honest opinion.

Well, now. There's an interesting question. I personally think that his decline began when he set foot on that aircraft carrier to declare "mission accomplished" when it clearly wasn't. I looked it up in my off-site blog, and even then I thought it was a real mistake. My prediction was that his enemies would see that premature declaration of victory as a sign of weakness. I don't think I was wrong.

If I had been on the Clinton payroll at that time, I would have told them to slap an extra tape in the VCR to get that moment for later use. Kerry was a sacrifice, and I think that certain people high up in the DNC new that. In their haughtiness, some people perceived Bush as a rube who could be beaten by a candidate who had actually been to a war zone. Never mind that they picked hte wrong guy to carry that water.

What we're seeing right now is a Perfect Storm of sorts. The anti-Republican vote isn't just about the war. Not any more. If you're in Hillary's camp, you have more targets of opportunity than you can exploit. As a conservative, I say that the GOP has doomed itself by its own hand.

I'm pretty sure that she didn't run because she thought Bush was going to be reelected. By the actual time of the election, I think Bush had slipped and could have been beatable, but not by Kerry.

Anyway, I think her calculations paid off for her, she's in a much better position now.

To be honest even thou it was a tight race in 2004 I thought that would Kerry would win at the time. I underestimated the clouded Issue of Kerry stance on the Iraq war and the effects of the attacks on his war record . Hillary has certainly played her cards smarty in fact she is a well refined political machine.

The image of Bush standing behind the "mission accomplished" sign certainty came back to haunt him which isnt surprising considering that the insurgency had already began at that time (correct me if I'm wrong on that point .)

It really wasn't that close. Bush won by a much better margin than Clinton ever did, garnering a true majority for the first time since his father won.

Like I said I think he was beatable, but Kerry had just made too many faux pas. Perhaps Hillary could have beat him if she had run, but I think she has a much better chance now than she would have had then, so I think her decision not to run in the last race was the proper one for her.

Sometimes it is better to have a clear winner . One memory that stands out foe me was a segment on the TV news of either Bush or Kerry throwing the first pitch at a Baseball game and exactly half of the crowd cheering.



I agree with you here as a candidate Kerry was a disaster. Unlike Nixon there is no way that Kerry will ever get another chance. IMO Kerry campaign was poorly managed to begin with perhaps Hillary already had the best advisor's sworn up.



Hillary is certainly going to profit politically from the Iraq mess which she supported until things went down hill. Hillary Iraq war vote seems more like a calculated political move rather then looking after the security and interests of the US. Katrina turned out to be a an unexpected bonus for the Dems .