Is this a stupid question?

I've been watching the debates since last April. I've been reading campaign coverage and listening progressive radio even before then. I am left still having one question that hopefully someone can answer.

Sen. Clinton has touted the fact that she's fought for country for 35 years, where was she in 2004? Why didn't she run for POTUS then? I recall her saying then that her only focus was on her Senatorial re-election in 2006. But, "If she knew then what she knew now" is her explanation for her IWR vote, in 2004 she must've known that * was a threat to democracy at home and abroad. If she truly were a champion for our cause, why then didn't she challenge * by running against him?

Clinton supporters...please, this isn't a flame post!! I'd actually love to hear some kind of response to this. I'm a proud supporter of John Edwards and Obama hasn't "won" me over. I'd love to support Hillary, but this question really bugs me about her.

Just a wild guess. You might want to pose the question on her National Town Hall meeting tonight (no guarantee she'll take the question), or just watch her take questions and answer them on the show:

9 pm Eastern

Live stream at:

http://hillaryclinton.com/

and

on the Hallmark channel.

:patriot:

one about whether or not Bush would be re-elected.

It's been known since 2000 that Cheney was not going to run after Bush leaves office.

So the 2008 race (if Bush won 2004) was going to be wide open on both sides.

If Kerry had won in 2004, likely that would be that. Kerry until 2012 and Edwards as the heir apparent.

So it would be 2016 at the earliest for her to run. Or she could run in 2004. But if she ran in 2004 (so soon after 9/11 and only 4 years past her husband's term) if she failed to win either the primaries or the general, she would be finished. The field looked weak in 2004, with only the excitement of Dean and the freshness of Edwards adding much to the field. I'm pretty sure she figured to let them fight it out and let the winner take on Bush / Cheney, figuring whoever would run would likely lose.

She and her team had it pretty well figured out.

Only thing was, 2008 nomination was supposed to be hers in a cakewalk.

Ooops.

She was elected to a six year term in 2000. She promised to complete that term. She did not run in 2004 because of that promise.

they can beat a man!!!!!! Do you know that by now?????

what do politicians do?

they lie. they dissemble. they obfuscate. they cover their asses.

it's her job.

give her a break.

Neither Bill or Hillary were out front fighting to get their own party's nominee elected in November 2004, in fact had Kerry won that probably would have screwed their plan up.

They were willing to allow Bush 4 more years to screw this country over by sticking to some pre-baked plan instead of seizing the moment when "I've been vetted by the GOP for the last X years" Hillary probably would have beaten him easily.

twice the experience, before they can bea a man!

That she was focusing on being a US Senator.

A saavy analyst will tell you that she knew it was not possible for a Democrat to win in 2004....I know I thought as much.

Also, look what they did to Dean, Cleland, Kerry. Hillary knew that was coming, what with Rove at the helm. Chelsea was younger, too, so maybe she didn't want to subject her to all that garbage.

.....and still didn't win!

(well, officially anyway)

They are very good at that. Well, no, not good...they just do it.

Hillary was elected in 2000. She promised to fulfill her six year term and she did. That is why she did not run in 2004.

And conversely, so are you and some of the other Obama supporters. Frankly both factions make me sick. You people are exactly what is wrong with the political process. I wish all of you would just shut the hell up and let the adults speak.

I am not referring of course to the sane supporters of either candidate, just the clowns who hang out and spew completely one-sided crap all over the boards. You know who you are.

they can beat a man!

Yes, this is a stupid question.


Why didn't Kerry run in 2000? Why didn't Carter run in '72? Dumb.

Senator of New York in 2000 for a six year term. She kept her promise and did not run for President in 2004 for that reason.

:patriot:

Like I stated in the OP, this question's been bugging me about Sen. Clinton for some time. :patriot:

Sometimes things are much more logical than people here like to think.

interesting question-to which I can't give you a specific answer.

Personally, it just doesn't seem right in my mind to run for an office & before your first term has run out, announce your candidacy for another job. It just seems rather disingenuous to me.

I thought she honored the job of NY Senator by at least fulfilling 1 full term. She did campaign for Kennedy

it's the female experience. Don't you know that by now!

Hillary was elected as Senator of New York in 2000. She promised to fulfill her six-year term. That is why she did not run in 2004. She kept her promise.