A farewell to Hillary's dreams of world domination?
Vince Morris, a reporter for the New York Post, was incredulous when political strategist/Bush factotom Karl Rove claimed that last week's presidential debate was President George W. Bush's best. The reporter asked Rove: "Really? You can say that with a straight face?"
Of course not. Bush lost that debate. He was surly and seemed to be not in control of facts. Kerry made full use of his patrician air (that grayish hair, the almost Jewish nose, the demeanor that seems to suggest Shakespeare) and looked more presidential than the US president himself. The conventional analysis suggests that the debate gave Kerry a new momentum to catch up with the front-runner Bush. Kerry has once again a fighting chance, they say.
Does this mean goodbye to Hillary's dreams of world domination? If Kerry wins, John Edwards will be vice-president and heir to the throne, effectively sidelining Hillary. And anybody who has seen John Edwards smile can imagine how formidable a presidential campaigner he could be. Besides, pace feminists, Hillary isn't getting any younger.
Some people argue, including Clintonites no doubt, that the coming November election is a good one for the Democratic party to lose. A second term for Bush would probably preside over a second Vietnam in Iraq and an economic downturn to boot. The GOP would therefore get the blame, thereby brightening the prospects of the Democrats in the long term -- including Hillary's in the 2008 elections.
The heart bypass of Bill Clinton therefore came in a most opportune time. He got an excuse not to campaign for Kerry, without alienating those Democrats who support the latter's candidacy. If Kerry botches next month's elections, Bill Clinton may be back at the Oval office in four years' time. With more free time to entertain the interns.