August 15, 2013

"For any non-Clinton Democrat, exploring the 2016 election is something of an exercise in perceived futility, at least for the moment."

"She looms larger over the primary landscape than any undeclared candidate since perhaps Dwight Eisenhower, and the drop-off in prominence between her and the next tier of Democrats makes it all but impossible for any less famous politician to win consideration as a credible alternative."

Writes Politico under the headline "Non-Clinton Dems ask: Why not me?"

Isn't this the key to answering that question everyone was asking yesterday about why the NYT published that exposé "Unease at Clinton Foundation Over Finances and Ambitions"? No one else has a shot at positioning himself/herself for the Democratic nomination as long as the behemoth Clinton stands. Now's the time to be lining up support, and if Hillary is going to topple, she needs to topple at the right point on the time line for the Democratic Party.

41 comments:

Tom said...

Look, she's been running for president and avoiding anything hard since her youth, certainly in law school, and at the Rose Law Firm (why else would she be the lowest paid partner at that firm?). She's going to get the nomination unless she can be destroyed -- and she can only be destroyed by a vast leftwing conspiracy -- the right can't touch her. She's going to call everyone she faces a racist or misogynist -- so get ready Rand Paul. And when she finally makes it to the White House, he's going to be a lost puppy. Because governing is really hard!

Rumpletweezer said...

On my bookshelf is a paperback titled "The Wit and Wisdom of Spiro Agnew." It's entirely blank except for a page in the front which says "When small men cast large shadows, it's a sure sign that the sun is setting."

Matthew Sablan said...

2016 is 2008 all over again.

cubanbob said...

She ain't no Ike.

Hillary has no chance unless the republicans commit political suicide. Sure she would get 40% of the vote guaranteed, Nixon would have gotten that vote percentage the day he resigned, any candidate of either of the two parties will always get that percentage of the vote. The problem for Hillary and for the democrats is they have reached their maximum realistic voter turn out in the 2018 and 2012 presidential elections. They know this. They also know that in both of those elections the republicans didn't turn out the maximum realistic voter turn out for them.

Hillary has too many negatives, it doubtful she can pull out the vote like Obama did in 2008 and 2012 and she will definitely help jazz up voters who lean republican to get out and vote against her. She has no real record of accomplishment, she can't escape her ties with Obama and with the Clintons there are and will always be scandals. If these revelations continue it a sign the party wants to not do a Bob Dole and give her the nomination as a right of seniority but rather find a way to get an electable candidate.

Leeatmg said...

I still believe that NYT piece is just pre-vetting her for the run. Get it out of the way now, talk about it now, so it's old news by the time she does run. It's not a hit piece - it's a favor amongst friends, or at the very least, amongst allies.

mccullough said...

I can't imagine Obama not trying to undermine Hillary's run for the nomination. All the leaks about Hillary will come from his loyalists. What Democrat would Obama want to succeed him. That's the person who will get the nomination.

Steve said...

"She looms larger over the primary landscape than any undeclared candidate since perhaps...Hillary Clinton in 2008."

Sam L. said...

Good Point! Or, maybe the NYT is more invested in Benghazi Barry than we think.

AustinRoth said...

OK, wasn't this the same 'conventional wisdom' as in 2008?

Richard Dolan said...

It's quite amazing how so many think that 'inevitability's is a persuasive political argument. Perhaps it pays to recall that Hillary was inevitable in 2008, too. If that's the best argument anyone can come up with for her candidacy, I'd say she's toast.

SteveR said...

It was a bland field in 2000 and 2004, 2008 saw two "destined" role players rise with the best actor claiming the prize. So beyond the reprise of the inevitable Hillary, there is no one else for the Dems to go with. None of this has anything to do with experienced and qualified for he job.

Michael in ArchDen said...

Does anyone else remember the SNL skit in early 2008, where "Hilary" thanks all the other candidates, for running even though they never had a chance? i think they even used a "Seal of the Presumptive President" or something like that...

n.n said...

While somethings change, others remain the same. In 2008, Clinton was opposed by the press, and her supporters were rejected at the polls. Today, the press still opposes Clinton, but there has been no news that the civil rights of her supporters were violated. Perhaps there has been some kind of progress, invisible, perhaps not strictly positive, but progress nonetheless.

bpm4532 said...

Hillary has to hope she scares all the other women out of the race and is left to compete with men who can be accused of being part of the war on women. If other women get in that are more pleasant sounding, more intelligent, less arrogant, and better looking, she won't get past Iowa.

LilyBart said...


Another obscure Acorn Lawyer will announce for president making big promises about change and social justice, eclipsing Hillary.

And the Ann Althouses will be enthralled.

TMink said...

I don't think she has the charisma to win. She may have the power and favor needed to secure the party allegiance, but I do not think she has the charisma and personal appeal to win.

Trey

Mitch H. said...

Hillary has to hope she scares all the other women out of the race

What nationally prominent female Democratic politician other than Clinton has a shot at the big time? Sebelius or Napolitano? Maggie Hassan? (Yeah, I know, who? - she's the only Democratic incumbent governor right now.)

There's a swarm of female Democratic senators, but none of them are exactly... impressive. And I'm still of the opinion that senators are distinctly unprepared if not actually unfitted for executive office by their experience in the genteel madhouse they call the US Senate.

Kelly said...

Hillary hurt herself when she threw in with President Obama. What possessed her to resign her senate seat to become Secretary of State? Our foreign policy is in shambles.

If past is prologue, we already know what a Hillary Clinton Presidency will look like. Regardless of the entertainment value we'd have with Bill Clinton as First Husband, the woman belongs no where near the Presidency.

DrMaturin said...

One more health issue and the Democratic race is suddenly wide open. She has had them already and she will be pushing 70. And she doesn't look like someone who takes particularly good care of herself.

YoungHegelian said...

Everyone please remember that the same media who now talks of Hillary's inevitability in 2016 thought that in 2008 Rudy Giuliani was THE Republican shoe-in for the nomination.

Strangely enough, the rest of the US just doesn't always agree with the view of reality from the Northeast Corridor.

MadisonMan said...


Hillary has no chance unless the republicans commit political suicide.

And they a good track record of doing that.

Levi Starks said...

There is only one Democrat who who has the poise to beat out Hillary.
I won't say who, but her last name is Obama.

Carl said...

I don't think the Democrats could win the 2016 election with Mary the Mother of God heading the ticket. Ordinary people are sick to death of hectoring and sanctimonious Democrats and their affirmative action Presidents.

Broomhandle said...

Our foreign policy is a shambles but how many of the people who voted for Obama in 2012 know or care? Very, very few. Since 1936 the Democrat margin of victory has always come from those who want a hand-out. Scandals and issues of character will make no difference to them.

myiq2xu said...

I feel like I'm having flashbacks. Is this 2006?

As a former Hillary supporter I know better than to believe the conventional wisdom. Bill and Hillary are despised by many of the Democratic party leaders, the far left and most of the media.

Teddy Kennedy is dead but most of the CDS Democrats are still around. But this time they won't have the element of surprise.

David said...

Hillary's husband got to be president by running for the nomination to oppose George Herbert Walker Bush when GHWB was widely seen as unbeatable. Gulf War victory (or perceived victory) and all that.

So the most prominent and supposedly strongest Democratic candidates either stayed our or dithered.

Then the economy tanked, Bush supported a tax increase (not in that order) and everything changed.

Thus the Clintons, with us still.

Bruce Hayden said...

Levi - the other Obama has even fewer accomplishments than her husband did when he ran, or, indeed, as does Hillary! She had a sinecure at a hospital so that they could legally bribe her husband, and that has been pretty much it. No legislative experience. No executive experience. No experience in doing anything that would realistically prepare her for the Presidency.

Besides, I think that Obama fatigue has already set in - it is going to be a long, long 3 1/4 years until the next Presidential election. Maybe in 8-12 years it will have worn off.

sonicfrog said...

Cubanbob said:

"Hillary has no chance unless the republicans commit political suicide".

Right now, she has a pretty good chance, because Republicans have gone out of their way to appeal to their base and their base only.

I used to consider myself a Conservative. But I won't vote for one anytime in the near future, especially when they continually, needlessly, demand religious and policy purity and continue being, frankly, politically stupid.

Seeing Red said...

Maybe they just don't want a bruising battle this time?

Or Hillary wants a sure thing?

Big Mike said...

Now's the time to be lining up support, and if Hillary is going to topple, she needs to topple at the right point on the time line for the Democratic Party.

Not that I or anybody else much care what happens to the Democrats. If things continue on their present trajectory the electorate will be turning to "Daddy Party" big time in 2016 to fix things.

PS: Are you aware of anything "democratic" about your Democratic party? Just askin'

AprilApple said...

We have the Clintons in our lives because of Ross Perot.

MadisonMan said...

Ordinary people are sick to death of hectoring and sanctimonious Democrats

Therefore, the Republicans will nominate someone like Santorum.

Carl said...

Therefore, the Republicans will nominate someone like Santorum.

Could be. They don't call it The Stupid Party for nothing.

Mark said...

Two words: "Brain damage".

Of all the ways to avoid testifying about Benghazi, calling in brain damaged was probably the most stupid.

SteveR said...

One way they could be less stupid is cut out all the debates.

Unknown said...

The story was inoculation against the issue for the NY Times and the Clintons. "It raises troubling questions," the narrative will go, "but the Clintons moved early to fix the problems demonstrating their conscientiousness and desire to fully abide by all applicable laws." End of story.

I also think the story is maze-bait for conservative media. Campaign finance, federal tax and association law issues are too complex for low-info voters to understand. Still, I can see conservative investigative reporters obsessively pursuing the Clinton Foundation and publishing a blizzard of stories that have no political effect because they're too complicated. In the meantime they'll miss the simple corruption that would deliver a far bigger political payload. If I were defending a crooked financier against a slate of complex and simple financial fraud charges, I'd inundate the jury with so much evidence going to the complex charges that sorting it out would distract them from the simple charges.

Don't ever doubt that the NY Times is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Clinton Inc.

damikesc said...

Right now, she has a pretty good chance, because Republicans have gone out of their way to appeal to their base and their base only.

I used to consider myself a Conservative. But I won't vote for one anytime in the near future, especially when they continually, needlessly, demand religious and policy purity and continue being, frankly, politically stupid.


I'm curious as to when the Republicans have appealed to their base at all.

Their surrender on Obamacare.
Surrender on immigration policy.
Surrender on actual meaningful spending cuts.

Quite bluntly, the Republicans don't like their base and have done little for them.

Meanwhile, Dems do whatever their base wants and, therefore, are guaranteed a lot of support by them.

Most Republicans are simply wannabe Democrats.

hombre said...

Now that Hillary's stint as Sec of State has provided conclusive proof of her incompetence and her insensitivity, she has become the perfect choice for the sociopathic Dems. Why look further.

hombre said...

Sonicfrog wrote: Right now, she has a pretty good chance, because Republicans have gone out of their way to appeal to their base and their base only.

I used to consider myself a Conservative. But I won't vote for one anytime in the near future, especially when they continually, needlessly, demand religious and policy purity and continue being, frankly, politically stupid.


McCain the lib and Romney the Mormon exemplify policy and religious purity? Whatever you considered yourself, you were clearly not a conservative.

A moby perhaps?

sonicfrog said...

damikesc said:

I'm curious as to when the Republicans have appealed to their base at all.

Their surrender on Obamacare.
Surrender on immigration policy.
Surrender on actual meaningful spending cuts.


The BASE of the party has done none of these things. They have not surrendered on anything.

They are still fighting to repeal Obamacare. By a whopping majority, the Republicans in the house just voted on the a bill to do just that.

-----------

How many Republicans voted FOR the current immigration reform bill in the Senate?

13

How many voted against it?

32

That doesn't sound like much of the base to me.

And the bill is going to die in the Republican led House. So it doesn't matter anyway.

--------

They do back down on the threats to shut down the government. But only because they know they'll get the blame for the repercussions if, or when, they do.

They haven't given up on these things, they're just losing because they don't have the Senate or the Presidency, and they don't know how to govern within those parameters.

Since the base can't get some of the things they want due to that inconvenience, instead of trying to get some of it, they go out of their way to make sure they get nothing, and then either blame the other party for their failures, or try to get rid of the moderates / RINO's, call them the base, which they are not, and pass the buck to everyone else.

sonicfrog said...

Hombre wrote:

McCain the lib and Romney the Mormon exemplify policy and religious purity? Whatever you considered yourself, you were clearly not a conservative.

On McCain in 2008..... After what is perceived even by many Republicans / Conservatives as the horrible Bush years, McCain, who had in the past labeled himself as the "anti-Bush" maverick in the party, was the obvious choice. Plus, he didn't have a single high profile strong Conservative running against him in the primaries. Every time someone would come forward, like, say, Giuliani, Conservative talkers would rip that candidate to shreds for "not being Conservative enough". Same happened to Huckabee.. You were left with Fred Thompson, who was putting people to sleep. The republicans had no strong conservative with any large appeal.

It wouldn't have mattered. After the Bush years, there were no coat-tales to ride on for any Republican candidate. And when Obama came along, it didn't matter if you had cloned the Gipper himself, Obama still would have won. he was the "feel-good" vote of the century!

2012. Different story. You had 5 Social Conservative running against the one moderate, Romney. In the first three months, the total votes for the Social Conservative got MORE VOTES in the primaries than Romney did! (see my post here).

"""Mitt Romney got the nomination because the party favors the moderate?

No.

He got the nomination because he was the only moderate competing against, at one point, five Purist Conservatives, all splitting the Purist vote amongst one another. If you take the vote count for Romney vs the combined Gingrich and Santorum totals through the March 3′rd Washington primary, their combined popular vote totals beat Romney 2,099,585 to 1,854,670. Adding in the Perry / Bachmann votes increases the purest vote at that point to 2,143,976. Think of what that would mean if Romney were only facing one Purist candidate. In April you start to see the vote totals for the Purists slide as more and more Conservatives shift to the inevitable – Time to back the obvious winner of the process. But it’s clear Romney is not the choice of the majority of the party. He won because the Pruists offered too many choices and couldn’t get out of their own way.
"""

Had their been less "True Conservatives" running, you may very well have had a candidate more to your liking.

But the True Conservatives stumbled their way to the selection of the moderate Romney. Hell, at one point, he wan't even saying anything because your guys were destroying each other.

So, no, Romney didn't win the nomination because that's what they majority of the party wanted. He won by the art of political attrition. He also had the most money and by far the best organization.