She's Our Lady: Hillary Clinton in 2004

She's Our Lady
HillaryClinton2004MarchWomensLives.jpg

"This nation needs better and stronger leadership. Over the last three years we have seen surpluses turned into deficits, economic prosperity turned into recession, and the standing of the United States fall. This has all happened under the watch of President George W. Bush and the Republican Congress. They're leadership has not been good enough, and it's time to change course. Therefore it's with the deepest sense of duty to this nation and it's people that I am announcing my candidacy for the Presidency of the United States. I'm in, and I'm in it to win it."
-Senator Hillary Clinton. January 20th, 2003 in Chicago, Illinois.

From the very start I knew that this campaign was different. Typically you have the candidate and then a hired hand as campaign manager. That manager generally bring with them a staff of veteran aides and assistants. But this wasn't the case with Hillary in 2004. She knew practically everyone on our campaign team. A lot of high ranking campaign members were from "Hillaryland", the term used by the media to describe her staff members in the Bill Clinton White House. That included campaign manager Maggie Williams and deputy campaign manager Patti Solis Doyle. Maggie had been Hillary's Chief of Staff during the '90s and Patti had run her 2000 senate campaign. Patti had been the early favorite to be the campaign manager, but after a series of meetings with other various staffers it soon became obvious that she wasn't as popular as Maggie. That's not an attack on Patti, and she would prove to be a valuable member of the team from day one all the way to the finish line. Howard Wolfson, an old New York political pro, was brought on as spokesperson for the campaign. His experience would prove to be very helpful throughout the race. Evelyn Lieberman was our COO. She had been the bulldog of the White House years and would fill a similar role during the campaign. Another Hillaryland member, Ann Lewis, would take the role of senior adviser. There were many other valued and active members of the campaign team, but it would take many more books to adequately describe their contributions. Me, I was brought on to shape the strategy of the campaign. Some people called me the "Democratic answer to Karl Rove", but I always felt differently. We may both be about winning, but Karl's also about destroying the opponent from start to finish. I only care about destroying them at the finish.
-In it to Win it, Mark Penn, 2005
mark_penn.jpg

Q: Senator Clinton, polls have consistently shown you leading your fellow Democrats in the battle for your parties nomination. Do you see yourself as the frontrunner?
A: Well Katie, first of all it's important to remember that no votes have been counted yet. It's far too early to name me the frontrunner and I'm sure that my fellow candidates will agree with me. What's even more important to remember is that this race isn't a fight between Democrats. We have to remember what the end goal is; defeating President Bush and getting a stronger leader in the White House.
Q: But you'd still say that you're the strongest candidate to defeat the President next November.
A: Well yes I would. Polls show that I can beat President Bush come November. But that alone isn't the only reason that I believe I'm the best candidate for the Democratic Party. I believe that I have the solutions to many of the problems this country faces. We need stronger leadership both in terms of foreign policy and in terms of the economy. Over the past four years we've been forced to accept mediocrity from our government. That's not good enough, and I'm committed to changing that.
Q: What about those who question you're experience both as an elected official and as a candidate?
A: Katie, I served this nation for a long time. I was a attorney for many years, and served as First Lady to both Arkansas and the entire nation. And as First Lady I took a very active role in the policies that Bill pushed for. I followed the goings on in the Arkansas State Legislature and in the United States Congress. Now I'm a Senator, and over the past four years I've taken an active role in governing this nation. The same goes for my campaigning experience. I've worked with Bill in every one of his elections, and I won a tough race for the United States Senate in New York four years ago. I most definitely have the experience it takes to win the Presidency and to be an effective President.
Q: Alright. The big issue for voters in 2004 appears to be the Iraq War. In October you voted for the Iraq War Resolution and have continued to voice you're support for an invasion. But with a party increasingly divided over Iraq, what do you say to anti-war voters who do not want to support a pro-war candidate.
A: The first thing I say is that war, wherever it's fought, is a difficult issue. The choice to send Americans into harms way is never easy. I understand why so many people oppose the war. They don't see the evidence of WMDs as being clear. But I can say as a member of the United States Senate that Iraq poses a clear threat to the rest of the region. I believe that once we have exhausted all diplomatic options that invasion should remain an option on the table.
-Good Morning America Interview with Katie Couric. January 28th, 2003
27_hillary_lgl.jpg


Today I announce that I am running for President of the United States of America. I speak not only for my candidacy. I speak for a new American century and a new generation of Americans -- both young people and the young at heart. We seek the great restoration of American values and the restoration of our nation's traditional purpose in the world.
-The Great American Restoration, Governor Howard Dean. June 23rd, 2003.
300px-Howard_Dean_declaration_of_candidacy_June_2003.jpg

The major question for the Democrats in 2004 isn't so much Hillary Clinton as who isn't Hillary. You have a field of candidates who for the most part aren't very well known and who don't have the popularity Hillary does with rank-and-file Democratic voters. She may have voted for the war, but so did many of her colleagues in Congress. Most Democrats support the war, and so it's not very likely that they'll turn on her for voting for it. You really only have a few anti-war candidates in the field anyway. Dean from Vermont, Kucinich, Reverend Sharpton, and Senator Mosely-Braun. None of those candidates are going to come anywhere close to beating Hillary. She's gonna have the support of the Party establishment, and it's going to take a major force from the left to stop her.
-Chris Matthews. July 18th, 2003
Hillary.png
 
Clinton gets destroyed by Bush for breaking her promise to serve a full term in Senate.
 
I've been kicking a GHWB -> Bill -> Dubya -> Hillary -> Jeb dynasty thing in my head for a while, but I don't know enough to make a TL out of it. I always wondered how Dubya vs. Hillary would've worked out. Subscribed :cool:
 

What, keep in mind, at the time Dubya looked like he was on his way to being one of our better Presidents... people tend to forget that. 2004 was technically the high water mark of his Presidency. None of the disasters from his second term have happened yet. The election goes something tlike this in a Bush vs. Hillary scenario:

Bush:
Popular war-time President who has led the USA through 9/11 and to victory over Afganistan and Iraq, and host to a strong economy. Katrina and the many scandals over the next four years have not happened. Many Republicans are still hailing him as the second comming of Reagan. Short of him having a Watergate level scandal, there is little way for him to lose.

Hillary:
Political enemy number 1 of the GOP, and they have prepared for this since she ran for Senate in 2000. Largest domestic legacy is the still widly unpopular Hilarycare. By running in 2004, she has all but confirmed she only cares about the Presidency, and her senate career will seem just like a tool. Can't even run as the anti-war canidate due to her voting in favor of the Iraq war. Her main benifits would be pointing to the accomplishments of her husband, which may backfire greatly.

Hate to say it, but this election will make OTL 2004 look like McGovern vs. Nixon all over again.
 
Last edited:
What, keep in mind, at the time Dubya looked like he was on his way to being one of our better Presidents... people tend to forget that. 2004 was technically the high water mark of his Presidency. None of the disasters from his second term have happened yet. The election goes something tlike this in a Bush vs. Hillary scenario:

Bush:
Popular war-time President who has led the USA through 9/11 and to victory over Afganistan and Iraq, and host to a strong economy. Katrina and the many scandals over the next four years have not happened. Many Republicans are still hailing him as the second comming of Reagan. Short of him having a Watergate level scandal, there is little way for him to lose.

Hillary:
Political enemy number 1 of the GOP, and they have prepared for this since she ran for Senate in 2000. Largest domestic legacy is the still widly unpopular Hilarycare. By running in 2004, she has all but confirmed she only cares about the Presidency, and her senate career will seem just like a tool. Can't even run as the anti-war canidate due to her voting in favor of the Iraq war. Her main benifits would be pointing to the accomplishments of her husband, which may backfire greatly.

Hate to say it, but this election will make OTL 2004 look like McCarthy vs. Nixon all over again.

It was McGovern not McCarthy. It's important to finish strong or else your point can get a little invalidated.
 
What, keep in mind, at the time Dubya looked like he was on his way to being one of our better Presidents... people tend to forget that. 2004 was technically the high water mark of his Presidency. None of the disasters from his second term have happened yet. The election goes something tlike this in a

Uh, what about the Iraq War?
 
It was McGovern not McCarthy. It's important to finish strong or else your point can get a little invalidated.

Thank, it has been corrected. Nevertheless, the point still remains. There was a reason Hillary didnt run in 04 in OTL, that being she would lose, big time.
 
Thank, it has been corrected. Nevertheless, the point still remains. There was a reason Hillary didnt run in 04 in OTL, that being she would lose, big time.

Well just wait. I understand you're opinion, clearly I disagree. Let's not make this a flame war.
 
Even if Hillary won, I strongly strongly strongly doubt that she'd win re-election in 2008. The economic crisis was going to happen regardless of who was to blame for it. Bush might even pull a Cleveland in 2008, with his campaign slogan being "Are you better off than you were four years ago?" Perhaps the tea party movement starts even earlier with Hillary at the helm.
 
I can guarantee Republicans won't be as happy with her then as they are now... And I can guaranteee, Nader will likely do a bit better in 2004...
 
Even if Hillary won, I strongly strongly strongly doubt that she'd win re-election in 2008. The economic crisis was going to happen regardless of who was to blame for it. Bush might even pull a Cleveland in 2008, with his campaign slogan being "Are you better off than you were four years ago?" Perhaps the tea party movement starts even earlier with Hillary at the helm.

I somewhat doubt Bush would pull a Cleveland, but anything is possible, I suppose.

But yeah, Hillary would get her ass kicked for sure, IMO. With the financial crisis and Iraq essentially becoming hell, there will be plenty of Republicans waiting in the wings to swoop down and win.

Please continue this timeline.
 
Well before the race was run the media was already projecting us the winners. That was both a blessing and a curse. For the most party Democratic voters still saw Hillary as our strongest hope of getting into the White House. Of course she was already being questioned for breaking her promise to serve out her full Senate term. For the most part this question was easily deflected. When she made the promise President Bush had not managed to drive the country into the ground. Voters continued to say the nation is on the wrong tract, despite the popularity of the War in Iraq. However among Democrats the war was less and less popular everyday. No longer were people simply going along with what the President said. It was because of this that I advised Hillary to emphasize her disagreement with the policies of the war, rather than the war itself. She came out frequently as an ardent critic of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and continued her attacks on the President. But for some this shift was not enough. Former Vermont Governor Howard Dean, who had initially been running as a fiscal conservative and health care reformer, began to draw support as a strong opponent of the Iraq War. He ran a close second to us in MoveOn.Org's "primary", and he was doing very well in fundraising. I hadn't identified him as much of a risk early on. Instead I expected a seasoned politician such as Kerry or Gephardt to be our chief rivals for the nomination. But Dean's progressive and independent streak appealed to voters. Honestly I shouldn't have been surprised. After all, the Democratic Party had nominated George McGovern in 1972 and had come close with Eugene McCarthy in 1968.
-In it to Win It
715a_howard_dean_cp_7114249.jpg

"My name is Wes Clark. I am from Little Rock, Arkansas, and I am here to announce that I intend to seek the presidency of the United States of America...We're going to run a campaign that will move this country forward, not back."
-Wesley Clark; Little Rock, Ar. September 17, 2003
2965771.jpg

The thing about General Clark and about all of the other candidates is that people don't know them. They think "oh they'res Hillary, and then they'res everybody else." Clearly Clark was trying to poke a hole in the Clinton mystique by announcing in Little Rock, and that will get some media attention. But I don't know if that's enough. Dean's campaigning as the anti-war candidate. That works well with some people, especially in Iowa where the War isn't very popular. It also works with young people, who are turned off by Hillary's very unhip persona. But let's remember this is a still a party where a lot of the voters are working class. They might be white, or black, or Hispanic. That's why polls show the most important issue to voters is still the economy. They don't like the idea that George Bush is cutting taxes for the rich, enacting free trade deals that cost them their jobs, and they especially don't like the idea of privatizing social security. That's where Hillary Clinton is strongest. She has the popularity of Bill going for her, and she is best versed on the economy any way. Gephardt's going to target the same voters, but he'll fail because he's too old-fashioned. Edwards might try too, though he's focusing on the middle class right now. Ultimately Hillary is the frontrunner because she is the most popular, powerful, and strongest Democratic candidate in this race."
-Andrew Sullivan, September 20th, 2003.

"I am going to campaign as hard as I can here in Iowa. I'm determined to win this state. The voters here are bread and butter Americans, and just because I voted for the Iraq War doesn't mean I can't win here. I believe what's most important for voters is the economy. The President has taken policies that have turned a surplus into a deficit, hurt the Middle Class, and embraced short-term profits over long term growth. Just look at the tax cuts. Who did they help? The rich. They didn't help the middle class, they didn't help small businesses, and they didn't help the economy. What they did do is burn through a surplus. What I supported then as I do today are tax cuts. But tax cuts aimed at the middle class and small businesses. Tax cuts that lead to growth, not deficits. Tax cuts that help relieve the burden on working Americans, not make life easier for the already privileged."
-Senator Hillary Clinton in Des Moines, Iowa. October 18th, 2003.

Quite simply what's kept Hillary above the pack is the fact that she can turn on the economic populism and turn off the war-hawkishness. She can talk about healthcare, taxes, and poverty with the best of them. The more she does the more she burns through the candidates, minus Dean and Clark. They both have things that make them different. Dean's anti-war, Clark is the General. But everyone else is just a Democrat, and Hillary is THE Democrat.
-Howard Fineman. November 31st, 2003.

Quinnipiac University Poll. Dec. 4-8, 2003. N=384 Democratic voters nationwide. MoE ± 5:
Hillary Rodham Clinton 43
Howard Dean 14
Wesley Clark 9
Joe Lieberman 7
Dick Gephardt 5
John Kerry 5
John Edwards 3
Al Sharpton 3
Carol Moseley Braun 1
Dennis Kucinich 1
Don't know 10

hillary-clinton-8.jpg
 
Top