Posted by Lexington Green on September 18th, 2003 (All posts by Lexington Green)
Jonathan taught me long ago that in trading you don’t lightly abandon your model and just try things. I hold to the same view in the less serious business of making political predictions while sitting at the breakfast table. I predicted last January that Hillary would run and Wesley Clark would be her running mate. Nothing has changed my mind.
The New York Post has this headline:Bill on Hill: It’s a maybe. “Clinton loyalists were startled yesterday to hear former President Bill Clinton suggest that his wife hasn’t made up her mind yet about running for the White House.” (via Drudge.)
No sh*t, Sherlock. Bill got in when Bush 41 was at 90% approval. Hillary is not going to miss a chance to go after Bush 43 when he is below 50% approval. When she gets in she will pretty quickly sweep everyone else from the field, especially in terms of fund-raising. She’ll roll to the nomination easily.
On a related point, the Wall Street Journal has a discussion about Wesley Clark getting in on its editorial page. It notes that “[t]he Democratic Establishment, very much including Bill and Hillary Clinton, is pushing the retired general as its stop-Howard Dean candidate.” The WSJ then concludes incoherently:
All of this occurs amid speculation about Hillary’s own presidential ambitions. Her role in backing the general suggests that she and her husband fear that Dr. Dean’s insurgency could upset her own well-laid plans for 2008. The real battle for control of the Democratic Party may finally have begun.
Uh, no. If Hillary wanted to run in 2008, she step back and let Dean run the party off the cliff in ‘04 and come back and be the savior of her party in ‘08. She is backing Clark because she is going to employ him as her running mate. He will provide cover for her lack of national security/military expertise.
They are going to be a formidable combination and they will probably beat Bush. Hope I’m wrong, but I fear I’m not. Believe me, this is one prediction I’d be happy to be wrong about.