And then in late 2014, a more vibrant, less jowly Clinton will return to the spotlight and announce her candidacy for president....
When it comes to historic elections, 2008 was just what most Democrats wanted. First the exciting young black guy, then the somewhat less exciting but eminently reliable old white lady. It was as if liberal voters promised to eat their vegetables if they could just have dessert first.
January 9, 2013
"Clinton will take a long, much-deserved vacation, then assume a low-key schedule of advocacy work and lucrative speaking engagements."
"She'll exercise, sleep more and eat better.... Her hair will finally find the sweet spot between the Stepford-esque helmet head of the campaign trail and the current granny-cum-Eileen-Fisher-model look...."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
33 comments:
How will she overcome that "I fell down and I can't get up" thing?
Hmmmmmmmmmmmm.
A history of blood clots would explain why no-one could remember who hired Craig Livingstone.
Good times, good times...
America can not survive without Hillary protecting her without excess testosterone.
Only sexists don't see one of the strongest SOS's ever in Hillary!
don't let the door hit you...
She doesn't have the stamina to be President.
Why isn't "testifying before Congress" one of the things on her to-do list?
Someone got paid for that.
I'm doing something wrong.
Obviously.
This sickly old woman is never going to be President of the US. It's hilarious to even suggest it at this point.
What Palladian said.
She's established herself as a doddering old bag with a drinking problem who can't do anything.
Plus, there's that GRU story.
So will she be visiting Nancy's plastic surgeon?
Stall.. stall.. stall..
Remeber Bill Clinton stalling over the Monica affair?
Hillary has learned her lessons well.
Expect more stalling in two weeks with another excuse.
The Democrats already called it--"Bros Before Hos." No wonder they think they have a lock on the woman vote, as Althouse Lefties are always saying!
When Hillary gets that CRITIC message in the middle of the night like Obama did, she will have the stamina to issue a stand-down order before rolling back to sleep just like Obama did. And she won't even have a big "Do" with Beyonce and JayZ the next day in Las Vegas.
Too much time has now passed since the Benghazi affair. She can use her old "I can't remember" gambit in two weeks. Plus, she had a "brain clot," you know!
The Dems haven't nominated anyone as old as Hillary in yonks. The Dems love their youthful conquerors.
Kerry was ancient by Dem standards at age 61.
Gore was only 52.
Clinton was sworn in at age 46.
Dukakis was turned 55 right around election day in 1988.
Mondale was 56 in 1984.
Carter was a youthful 52 in 1976. (And a decrepit 56 in 1980, of course.)
McGovern was 50 in 1972.
Humphrey was only 57 in 1968. And the Dems really had the hard-on for that little twerp RFK, who was 42.
The one that surprised me was LBJ in 1964: only 56!
JFK was only 43 when he was elected in 1960.
Adlai Stevenson was only 52 and 56 for his runs in '52 and '56.
That gets us all the way back to Truman, who was 64 when he ran in 1948. But his circumstance (like LBJ's) was complicated by the fact that he was running as a sitting President, having assumed office on the death of his predecessor.
When FDR ran in 1932 he was only 50 years old.
Al Smith was only 54 when he ran for office back in 1928.
John W. Davis was only 51 when he ran in 1924.
James M. Cox was only 50 when he ran in 1920.
Back to 1912, when we get Woodrow Wilson, who was 55.
William Jennings Bryan was only 48 when he ran in 1908.
In 1904 the Dems nominated Alton B. Parker, who was only 52.
In 1900 it was William Jennings Bryan again, this time only 40.
In 1896 William Jennings Bryan ran at age 36! It was a weird year, and the Dems had two candidates, of which Bryan was the regular. The gold one was a golden oldie, the 79 year-old John M. Palmer! But Palmer was part of a splinter group. The actual nominee was the very young Bryan.
The you get Grover Cleveland, who ran three times, in 1884, 1888 and 1892. He won the first time, at age 47. He was only 55 for the last run.
Winfield Scott Hancock was 56 when he ran in 1880's closely disputed election.
All the way back to 1876, when the Dem nominee was Samuel J. Tilden, who was 64! It was another closely disputed election. (It came down to a controversial count in ... wait for it ... wait for it ... FLORIDA!)
All the way back to 1876, and only two men (Kerry and Tilden) over 60 were nominated to be President. (I don't count presidents who were already holding office, which excludes Truman.)
I'll keep looking back at the records, but Dems just don't like old people.
Horace Greeley would have been 60 on election day 1872. Another ancient. Just as well he didn't get elected - his wife died shortly after the election, then he went mad and died before the electoral votes had been cast! That would have been a total freakin' nightmare.
Horatio Seymour ran in 1868. He would have been 58 at the time.
McClellan would have been 37(!) on election day in 1864.
In 1860 we had two Democratic candidates, Stephen A. Douglas from the North (age 47) and John C. Breckinridge (age 39) from the South. Douglas died in June of 1861, by the way, of typhoid fever.
Surely in 1856 we must have gotten some old fart from the Dems. James Buchanan Jr. age 65! Woohoo!
Franklin Pierce was only 47 on election day 1852.
Lewis Cass lost in 1848, at age 64.
James Knox Polk was the winning candidate in 1844, age 49 on election day.
Martin van Buren would have been 53 on election day 1836.
Then we get all the way back to the Founder of the Party, Andrew Jackson. He was 61 on election day in 1828. He won that election. But it was a grudge match from four years before, when he would have only been 57.
Now all of those candidates in the old days of the 19th Century probably were in a bit worse shape than we might expect for their ages. But still, going all the way back to the founding of the Democratic party, we only have a handful of Dem nominees who were 60 or older when nominated for their first run. Only seven by my count (it's late, I'm tired, if I miscounted someone correct me) and several of those were prior to the Civil War.
Not counting Truman (anomalous because of how he was chosen President) or the splinter party candidate Palmer, there is a huge gap of 128 years between Tilden getting nominated at 64 and Kerry getting the nod at 61. One-hundred and twenty-eight years! And let's face it, Kerry was a somewhat youthful 61.
So only six regular first-time non-sitting candidates over age 60
since the party was founded. There have been 10 under 50! That includes the last two that actually won the Presidency for the Dems.
...
Hillary will be 69 on election day 2016. She would be the oldest regular Democratic nominee ever, by 4 years. She couldn't beat a back-bench-er of a state senator who barely did anything with his then current job when she was only 61 and had the backing of a large swath of the Democratic party, name recognition, and all the money in the world. Why should we think she'll be able to do better now that she's eight years older and has more record for opponents to chew up?
What's really bad is that a few of the 60+ candidates for the Dems can be dismissed from consideration.
As I've mentioned in the previous two comments, Truman was in his 60s but was running as an incumbent, having been selected for the job in 1944.
Palmer was a splinter candidate.
Greeley was the candidate more or less by default, as no one with more credibility wanted to run against Grant in 1872.
And Andrew Jackson himself had been in his fifties when he first ran, losing a hotly disputed election in 1824.
When you get right down to it, the Dems have really only picked first time nominees over age 60 on four occasions: in 2004 (Kerry, lost), 1876 (Tilden, lost), 1856 (Buchanan, won) and 1848 (Cass, lost). And again, they've gone under 50 either nine times (if you only count Bryan's three runs as one run) or eleven times (if you count all three). And yes, I apparently miscounted in the prior post.
Still, Hillary would appear to have missed her shot. Dems do not nominate people as old as she'll be in 2016, and only rarely people as old as she was in 2008.
Thanks, Icepick, for the historical perspective. Very interesting.
We are the ones that deserve the vacation. From all things Clinton.
Ann,
I think its more likely that she may be 'terminated' whether by physical, ethical, moral,political, financialor social means or methods is not important. The undeniable truth is that there are many democratic leaders who believe that the Clintons have well exceeded their authorized 15 minutes of fame and that the time has come for someone else to assume the mantle of FDR. Andy Cuamo is only one of them. Also, I think Bloomberg is anxious to be the first Jewish American President. SO I think Hilary will see a considerable amount of opposition to her candidacy before she anounces.
The Obamas don't want her in the POTUS mix either. Michelle and Barry havve POTUS ambitions for Moochelle and Barrys post POTUS safety depends on Moochelle being a contender for the highes elective office in the land....
Lastly, the issues in 2016 are going to be about the dollar, China's role as our finacial overlord, the debt, the power of public employee unions and the economy. MOst of these problems can only be solved by massive changes in governments role in our economy. Hillary would be put in the position of having to say no to the Democratic power structure. I don't think she has the skill or the will to fight them.
Obama may decide that the simplest way to neutralizer Hilary is to appoint her to Associate Justice Ginsberg's seat on the SCOTUS. It would be a slam dunk. It would also complicate Bill's ability to participate in the political life of the power elite since his 'wife' would be put in the position of being an 'impartial' judge on many issues that could be brought before the court.
"It was as if liberal voters promised to eat their vegetables if they could just have dessert first."
How can anyone compare a shit sandwich to dessert?
"It was as if liberal voters promised to eat their vegetables if they could just have dessert first."
How can anyone compare a shit sandwich to dessert?
May she face a young, likeable, relatively conservative Republican who will beat her like a drum in a manner similar to Kerry and Bush.
Icepick, I think your historical perspective is skewed slightly. As you go back in time, the dying age was younger, too. Also did you do your historical perspective on Republicans and Whigs and all those other Progressive, Nihilist, etc. too?
Much-deserved. That's funny.
Also did you do your historical perspective on Republicans ....
Reagan, Eisenhower, Dole, Ford, Romney, McCain ... just off the top of my head.
This sickly old woman is never going to be President of the US. It's hilarious to even suggest it at this point.
I agree with this. Don't think that she would even come close to the nomination.
One basic problem is that one of the main demographics putting Obama over the top the last two elections are young low-information voters. She would have a hard time connecting with voters 40 or so years younger, and, esp. running against a Republican with half the age difference.
Another part of this is energy level. That demographic will likely be turned off by a woman old enough to be their grandmother who has the energy level of someone that old.
I think another part of it is that I think that the Republicans are going to try real hard to get a minority on the ballot - most likely Hispanic. And, again, without this demographic, Obama probably wouldn't have won either time.
And, of course, she was a flawed candidate in the first place, with a long history of radicalism and dishonesty, married to one of only two Presidents ever impeached - and in his case, for dishonesty. Sure, she learned the moves from Slick Willy, but could never learn his charisma.
I do really think that her shot was 2008, and she blew it. Obama was probably even more dishonest, but ran a much better campaign, smoking her in the caucuses where organization counted more than money, and by the time she started cooking on the campaign trail, it was too late.
She still hasn't done anything to demonstrate that she'd be a competent president. But lots of things to prove that she's not.
Portia, it doesn't matter what other parties have done, because Hillary will presumably be running for the Democratic Party nomination, thus their history matters.
As mentioned by another commenter, Republicans have been far more likely in recent decades to nominate older men than Dems. In the last 136 years the Dems have had only one non-sitting Presidential nominee over the age of 60, and that was 61 year old John Kerry. The last two Dems to win the Presidency were both under age fifty when elected.
Your comment about people dying younger back when is irrelevant at best, as pre-Civil War Dems were MORE likely to nominate someone over age 60 than post-Civil War Dems. In other words, the trend is for Dems to want to nominate relatively (and absolutely) younger and younger people. Nominating a 69 year-old would be very out of character for the Democratic Party, and it would make Hillary the oldest non-sitting Democratic Presidential Nominee ever, by several years.
She wouldn't just be vegetables after dessert, she'd be old moldy vegetables.
Post a Comment