Hillary Clinton launches presidential exploratory committee

January 20, 2007

We knew it was pretty likely, and today’s it’s official: Sen. Hillary Clinton announced the formation of a presidential exploratory committee.

Six years after making history by winning a United States Senate seat as first lady, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton announced this morning that she was taking the first formal step to seek the Democratic presidential nomination in 2008, a journey that would break yet more political barriers in her extraordinary and controversial career.

“I’m in,” she says in a statement on her new campaign Web site. “And I’m in to win.”

Mrs. Clinton, 59, called for “bold but practical changes” in foreign, domestic, and national security policy and said that she would focus on finding “a right end” to the Iraq war, expanding health insurance, pursuing greater energy independence and strengthening Social Security and Medicare.

In her statement, Mrs. Clinton also squarely confronted an issue that concerns many Democrats: Whether she can, in fact, win the presidency. Some voters still associate her most with the controversies of the Clinton administration, and Republicans have long attacked and caricatured her, and plan to brand her as indecisive on Iraq.

“I have never been afraid to stand up for what I believe in or to face down the Republican machine,” Mrs. Clinton said on the Web site. “After nearly $70 million spent against my campaigns in New York and two landslide wins, I can say I know how Washington Republicans think, how they operate, and how to beat them.”

Clinton enters the race, without a doubt, at the top of the top tier. I’ve heard all the various concerns about her candidacy, but I don’t have any doubt that she has what it takes to win.

Indeed, Clinton brings an enormous amount of talent, experience, and intelligence to the table. She has a great record as an effective lawmaker, she will likely be the most well-financed candidate on either side of the aisle, and she has the most professional and disciplined staff I’ve ever seen (and I’m not just talking about my friend Peter Daou). She also happens to be married to the greatest political mind of the generation.

One other point I want to emphasize: when Clinton said she knows how Republicans “think, how they operate, and how to beat them,” she’s absolutely right. Indeed, it might be one of her most compelling selling points. The right-wing attack machine has gone after Hillary Clinton for at least two decades, and she’s learned a thing or two about how to stand up to the Rovian Swiftboat-style attacks, and come out ahead when the dust settles. There’s a “toughness” intangible candidates bring to a national race, and I think Clinton has more of it than anyone else in the country.

To reiterate a point I’ve made several times, I remain entirely neutral on the race. I believe, however, that Clinton is a force to be reckoned with, and is not to be underestimated.

Clinton’s video announcement is online here, and the text of her remarks is here. Stay tuned.

What would you guess the early lines on her VP are set at?
Wesley Clark 2:1
Barack Obama 4:1
John Edwards 8:1

  • I’m glad that Hillary announced today she is in. Let the attacks begin so by election day the right will be burned out and she will be a shoe in. Unless she has done something we don’t know about in the last 6 years there isn’t much dirt left to dish. I think the attenion she will get from now to the primaries will be very helpful to her.

  • I think she’s going to be strong in the political middle.

    When did “exploratory committee” become an official part of runing for president? Just another level of publicity?

  • Yeah, yeah, yeah. But what was she wearing? [/snark]

    It should be interesting. I wonder if anyone will dig out the old “She’ll have a hot flash and launch nukes,” crap again.

    When did “exploratory committee” become an official part of runing for president?

    Man, I wish they’d drop that phrase. Because of my job it always causes vague yet alarming thoughts of a medical procedure that features a mile of tubing and a doctor with cold hands. [shudder!]

  • It’s unfortunate that the MSM is already playing this as a “Hillary vs Obama” horserace – ignoring everyone else, as well as the issues

  • a doctor with cold hands. [shudder!]
    Comment by The Answer is Orange

    Eek! Or worse, a committe of doctors with cold hands.

  • I voted for Hillary for the Senate before I left New York. She’s been a decent senator, certainly better than d’Amato. Unfortunately she and McCain have contorted so badly in the lead up to the campaign that I don’t support either of them.

  • “I have never been afraid to stand up for what I believe in or to face down the Republican machine,” Mrs. Clinton said

    Maybe when she was First Lady, but since she’s been elected to her own seat, but the remarkable thing about Hillary is that she has appeared to be rather meek in the face of Republicans and especially public perception. She’s always the last one in the pool and she seems to take positions that are politically calculated to upset the fewest number of people. Her “strengths through triangulation approach” will make her a middle of the road candidate that neither side trusts.

  • After nearly $70 million spent against my campaigns in New York and two landslide wins, I can say I know how Washington Republicans think, how they operate, and how to beat them.”

    US is not limited to DC, no matter what she thinks, after all those years she’s spent there (in one position or another). Beating DC Republicans is only part of the row she (or anyone else) will have to hoe. Nor are her victories in the state of NY, which is mostly blue anyway, entirely comparable to what she’ll have to do on the national scene.

    Besides being Our Lady of Perpetual Triangulation (thanks for that one, whoever coined it! TAIO?Dale?), which tends to turn people off, she lacks her husband’s charisma, quick wit and skill at repartee. It was quite evident at Rosa Parks’ funeral, where both she and Bill spoke.

    She’s dull, same as Kerry is dull — not dull witted, but lacklustre. I’ll support her if she wins in the primaries, but with the same reservations, lack of heart and feeling of approaching doom with which I supported Kerry. Which is a pity, because I would like to live long enough to see a woman become a President of US. But I can’t *stand* the idea of another 4 or 8 yrs of Repub rule.

    Unfortunately, it’s no longer enough to have a product, even a good one; you have to be able to sell it. In fact, judging by the sweepings we now have ruling the roost, I’d say that marketing is more important than the product’s quality to a large part of the population.

  • Our Lady of Perpetual Triangulation (mine!) is running a cult of personality campaign despite having a basically unappealing personality.

    Think about it. I understand why Edwards is in: social and economic equity. I get why Obama made the race: an end to the zero-sum partisan wars. Brownback (loud and proud right-wing nuttery), McCain (what was once called “national greatness conservatism,” though with every pander he’s straying farther from that vision), Newt–all their campaigns have a clear purpose and justification.

    What is it for Our Lady? I don’t think anyone is really that interested in a Clinton Restoration: this isn’t 15th-century England. It damn sure isn’t her crystal-clear vision for where she wants to take the country: nobody has spent more time covering her ideological tracks, and nobody seems to more ardently desire the approbation of the punditocracy.

    The first-woman thing? I guess, and I wish I could support that. But I think the point is more forcefully made when the barrier-breaker isn’t someone who came to attention through her marriage.

    I just don’t see any “there” there except the name, the money, and the organization. Is that enough? I devoutly hope not, both because I think she’s the one candidate on our side who could lose to a well-run Republican campaign, and (more to the point) even if she wins, we as a nation can’t afford the extended sentence of zero-sum partisan bullshit that would ensue while enormous problems continue to fester unaddressed.

  • Hillary = yawn.

    At least it will keep the MSM busy for the next year, allowing the real candidates to build some support unmolested by faux reporters.

  • I think the point is more forcefully made when the barrier-breaker isn’t someone who came to attention through her marriage.

    Anyone who thinks Bill made it to the top on his own is dreaming. They are a team.

    I just don’t see any “there” there except the name, the money, and the organization. Is that enough?

    It sure is. How do you think someone gets a name, money and an excellent organization? Hilliary won over some of her harshest critics in NY. Anyone who sells her short may not be paying attention.

    BAC

  • Unfortunately, it’s no longer enough to have a product, even a good one; you have to be able to sell it. In fact, judging by the sweepings we now have ruling the roost, I’d say that marketing is more important than the product’s quality to a large part of the population.

    Exactly. American voters are suckers for appearance. How someone comes across is more important that the substance of their ideas. Charisma, looks, how they make you feel, that’s what overrides logic and analysis in the good ol’ USA. Kennedy probably won in part because he had a pretty wife and was himself dashing. Kerry had all that going against him, he was the antithesis of charisma. How else could anyone lose against Bush after Bush had had four years to show how bad he was?

    Hillary may be tough, but her triangulation (I too love that OLOPTriangulation moniker!) is a turnoff and she too often comes across as cold and humorless. Both Obama and Edwards have the charisma thing going full force, and that’s a powerful element in politics today, maybe the most powerful of all. The two of them on a ticket couldn’t lose, but I don’t think Edwards would settle for second fiddle again. Obama could conceivably. I would love that campaign! Clark with either of them could be a great ticket too. Richardson? I don’t know, we’ll have to see where he goes as people get to know him.

    Hillary just doesn’t do it for me, though. But if she does get to the White House, I sure hope she makes Bill her Secretary of State, Clark her sec of Defense (if he’s not already busy as her VP), and that she finds positions for Edwards and Obama in her cabinet as well. This is one of the strongest fields the Dems have had in maybe forever in terms of the talent and intelligence they bring to the table. It would be great to see them all working together in a new administration. Zeus knows that after 8 years of Bush it’s going to take some real talent to bring the country back from where it’s slid.

  • Am I the only one who gets sick to their stomach at the thought of the white house being in the hands of the same two family names for over two decades?

  • It made me so sick to see the msm coronating queen Hillary like she is automatically our choice.
    I wish these people would buy a clue. The left hates Hillary as much as the right.
    I find her to be a DLC, corporate, inside the beltway, warmongering fake.
    I personally find her like fingernails on a blackboard.
    No more clintons or bush’s ever. It is time for a change.

  • I think the tale will be told in the debates to come, and I’m really looking forward to them. The candidate that really grabs the public’s attention will be the automatic front runner regardless what the early prognostications are, which is as it should be.

    As long as it’s a stand-up fight and not a bug hunt, I’m not that concerned with who comes out on top. It’s going to be a good show, no matter what.

  • My take is that, woman or not, good Senator or not, America in 2008 is not going to elect the “ultimate insider”, same old same old kind of partisan machine politico.

    Hillary is not in the top tier in terms of having a charismatic leadership style; she is not in the top tier in terms of having “run something”, and she is ultimately a polarizing figure. This country will react to someone who is prepared to be the effective diplomat AND commander-in-chief we have arguably not had for a long time now.

    It isn’t happening, in my opinion — and should not — for reasons articulated in this thread. The name “Clinton” may be popular, but it is also too UNpopular to be back in “the big chair”. No amount of marketing will undo that.

  • I support Senator Clinton and will help her in her fight for the White House. I really do think it is time that a woman is elected. Sure she will have to deal with a lot of crap but since she has had so much thrown at her since Bill was elected there can’t be much really new. Hillary for Pres and Obama for Vice……………..

  • Well, I’m glad she’s in. Finally.

    I would (will) likely support some other candidate for the nomination, but if she wins (as is likely I suppose) I’ll support her for the general.

    Not exactly a strong endorsement? Maybe, but the Republican’ts aren’t running anyone great and they deserve YEARS in the wilderness for foisting Boy George II upon us anyway.

    I think her choice for Vice is Clark, but he has to try hard in the run for the nomination and vet well to get it. As for Obama as VP, we really don’t need two pols from Illinois (where she’s from originally) after having two pols from Texas in the White House (though at least Hillary being from New York is more honest than Cheney claiming residency in Wyoming).

  • No, concaf, you are not “the only one who gets sick to their stomach at the thought of the white house being in the hands of the same two family names for over two decades”. There are at least two of us, and probably a lot more. For the record, the next generation of Clintons turns 35 in 2015, so Hillary’s yet unannounced campaign slogan could be: “Keeping the Chair Warm For Chelsea.”

    And Lance — although Cheney is near the bottom of my “most admired list” (tied with OJ), I don’t think we ought to be making a point about Hillary (“I’ve always been a Yankee fan”) Clinton being more of a legit New Yorker than Dick is a Wyomingian (?). Instead it is a clear sign of her being an opportunist of the first order. Cheney at least got picked up twice for drunk driving twice in Wyoming, on top of: graduating HS and getting 2 university degrees there, being employed there by a power company, marrying a woman from there, and being elected to Congress 6 times by the residents of Wyoming. Hillary’s being from New York is “more honest”? Really? And the evidence for that assertion is…….?

  • Saturday — Iowa — Fox News Coverage: Sen. Hillary Clinton laughs and talks during the National Anthem while on the podium. Demonstrates total lack of respect for our great country and for those who have sacrificed for it. This was no “mistake” — Senator Clinton has had plenty of advice on what to do during the playing of our National Anthem as First Lady of AK, First Lady of U.S. and as Senator. Raising money at the Fundraiser clearly took priority over respect for the United States. Says a lot about her motives and what she is really “in” for. I doubt she really understands “Non Sibi Sed Patria.”

  • We need a president that will bring the country and the world together. Gender has nothing to do with it. “Clinton” has everything to do with it. Are women in this country so determined on electing a female as our president that you are willing to bite off your nose to spite you face? We need a diplomat. Hillary, a great female will start three steps behind before taking one step forward. The same old Washington players, playing the same old games, and somehow expecting a different result……if i could say it better I wouldn’t repeat it. It’s ok ladies, it’s a real nice world we live in….you go girls……

    • Comments are closed.