A Stitch in Haste

The Washington Post is reporting that aides to Senator Clinton, who is up for re-election in 2006, have indicated that she will not commit to serving out a full second Senate term (which of course she couldn't do if she plans to run for president in 2008).

In 2000, she repeatedly pledged that she would finish her term without seeking the presidency. Aides say she will not issue such a pledge this time.

But is "not issuing a pledge" the same as "announcing her candidacy for president"? It should be.

As I blogged previously:

Clinton should be nailed down, precisely and unequivocally, on this question during her Senate re-election campaign: Is she or is she not running for President in 2008? (Also, would she accept the Vice President nomination if it played out that way?). No "maybes." No "I have no plans." No "It's premature for that." Yes or no — is she running?

I did not vote for Clinton in 2000, will not vote for her in 2006 and will oppose her candidacy for president should she choose to run.

But even with a candidate whom I might otherwise endorse, I don't think I could bring myself to support someone who could not commit to a full term or who couldn't at least be honest and forthright with voters.

It will be up to New Yorkers to decide whether they will let themselves be used and abused by this carpetbagger with the grand ambitions.

Clinton is undeniably an "activist politician." It remains to be seen whether New Yorkers will become an "activist electorate," or mere sheep to be shorn.