Hillary's Dining Companions Spill Some Beans

The New York Times has just published a revealing article on Hillary Clinton's meeting with Democrats with whom she is discussing issues related to her possible run for the Presidency. Some of the diners are talking out of school.

Mrs. Clinton told Democrats that she viewed her two strongest potential Democratic opponents as Senator Barack Obama of Illinois and John Edwards, the former senator from North Carolina. They said that she viewed Mr. Obama as her biggest obstacle to the nomination, but that she believed the threat of his candidacy will diminish as voters learn how inexperienced he is in government and foreign affairs.

Without mentioning Mr. Obama by name, Mrs. Clinton and her camp are already asserting that experience will be a key attribute for any successful candidate during difficult times — an argument that her team will no doubt make in a more aggressive way against Mr. Obama if they both jump into the race.

Hillary seems to be moving closer to a run:

According to participants, it is clear that Mrs. Clinton is far along in plotting a campaign, and she is honing strategy at the same time that she is making overtures to people in states that heavily influence the presidential nominating process. New Hampshire is expected to hold the first primary in January 2008, after caucuses in Iowa and Nevada.

Mrs. Clinton has gone to great lengths to try to keep these meetings private. She and her aides have strongly asked Democrats not to report what has taken place there, from what she says to what she eats and where (she had the lamb at Ruth’s Chris, the Dover sole at the Four Seasons).

It sounds from the article like the current strategy is for Hillary to announce she is forming an exploratory committee in January, but hold off for a period before formally entering the race, so she can get some accomplishments under her belt in the new Democratic Congress.

I think that's a good strategy. When you have a profile that high you don't need to increase your name recognition. It's better to build slow and steady. It's not like we all don't know she's running.

< Could Hillary Choose Sen. Ken Salazar as Running Mate? | Police Probe Gang Related Clues in Darrent Williams Shooting >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Mrs. Clinton's problem is the opposite of Barack's (none / 0) (#1)
    by Yes2Truth on Wed Jan 03, 2007 at 08:18:56 PM EST

    Mrs. Clinton's political experience ranges from Goldwaterism to Morrisism.  Is that a good thing for
    her?  I don't think so, if her opponents know how to THINK strategically and define her as a flip-flopping Goldwater Democrat.

    hahahahahahaha (none / 0) (#2)
    by cpinva on Wed Jan 03, 2007 at 10:12:13 PM EST
    too f*ing funny! a "goldwater" democrat? pal, how many people in this country do you think even remember barry goldwater? i'll wager only a small % of the voting age population in 2008. besides which, by the time of his death, mr. goldwater had turned nearly democratic.

    with respect to mr. obama, his chances diminish daily, for the reasons noted. if we were talking 2012, it might be a different story. it isn't. the more he's exposed, the less there is of him. that won't radically change by nov. 2008.

    with regards to mr. edwards, by 2008, absent some extraordinary event, he'll be a trivial pursuit question, more than a viable presidential candidate.

    conceivably, both might make good vp running mates, but little more.

    AuH2O (none / 0) (#3)
    by Pete Guither on Wed Jan 03, 2007 at 10:34:40 PM EST
    I remember Goldwater and so do my parents.  And I'll bet more remember what his name represents than you think.  Goldwater Republican referred to the traditional conservative -- limited government, fiscal responsibility, individual responsibility, states' rights -- all the good policy concepts that were chucked out the window when the party was hijacked by the minority coalition of the neocons and the pro-death social conservatives.  And I think we're going to hear a lot more about Goldwater the more we learn just how much the current Republican party led by Bush has dragged the country down into debt, incompetence and corruption.  If Republicans don't re-discover Goldwater, they'll probably never re-surface as a significant power.

    experience (none / 0) (#4)
    by diogenes on Thu Jan 04, 2007 at 11:40:01 PM EST
    Hillary has foreign policy experience?  It consists of pandering about the war.  If you want experience, pick Joe Biden; I'm sure he'll point that out if experience is the main issue in this campaign.

    Hilary is going to WIN (none / 0) (#5)
    by DARRYLMAST on Wed Jan 24, 2007 at 10:10:58 PM EST
    Republicans have no premise to speak from.  Bush 2 said he would be the war president 2 years before he ever ran.  Like in history between 1921 to 1932.  Harding, Coolidge, Hoover, Bush 2 did exactly the same program.

    The Repulbican Party as far as I'm concerned should be disbanned.  They need to start over because their leadership was complicit with organized crime the last 6 years.  An Organized effort to extort the federal general fune and put their oil enterprize in the center of the middle east.

    Graft is a serious crime.  Committed daily by the low life trash called Republcan leadership.  If we are to get this country back the first step is to get Hilary in office and back her 1000% as she turns the mess around a strips the thieves of the loot they stole.

    Hilary is a winner.  People who are against her are un-Amercan.  She represents the 290 million who pay 95% of the Federal General fund.  The other 5 million who are against her just take what we the people make.  

    When you can't run a business, George 2,  steal what other people make.  I support Hilary and intent to do all I can to see her win.