If Clinton were to see that she's either going to lose in 2016 or destroy the future development of national-level stars in her party, she could decide against running, release the dammed-up streams of cash to the next wave of Democrats, and allow them to develop their reputations in the 2016 race. Assume the GOP is due for its time in the presidency, and let this next round of campaigning center on rebuilding the front ranks of the party. From that invigorating process, a star could emerge. A star emerged in '08 even with Hillary blocking the way. To hope to win in '16 using the same tired bullyism on the theory that there's no one up and coming seems lame compared to bold moves to repopulate the party.I guess it seems that I am essentially making the argument to Hillary that she should step aside. Why make the argument if you don't think it could possibly be accepted? It works as an implicit criticism of Hillary: She's a selfish power seeker, uninterested in building the party. But I can see that I genuinely thought she might let go of her quest for the presidency. The country seems to switch parties every 4 years, and the Democrat is likely to lose. There's no hope of waltzing into the presidency after Obama, so why squander whatever respect she's accumulated over the years by putting your face on that loss, especially when it's predictable that everyone will blame her for preventing newer faces to emerge? She has an opportunity now to lead the party out of the wreckage of 2014. That would take foresight, grace, and generosity.
Yes, I know: I was shocked that Althouse would even consider the possibility that Hillary would act with foresight, grace, and generosity....
पोस्ट्स
३३ टिप्पण्या:
I say let Hillary be the trial by fire every democrat must go through to run for president.
Everyone knows the Clintons have the best oppo research.
"Assume the GOP is due for its time in the presidency"
No one thinks like that. Assuming that the Senate was still in GOP control, for one thing, that would mean dismantling of the ACA (if it hadn't happened already). It would mean a lot of very unpredictable changes, that would terrify any progressive.
I am still in a little state of wonderment that as recently as 2004 the GOP held all three parts of the government. They did pretty much nothing with it. Well, some Supreme Court justices. But the world is changed; today's GOP, assuming enough of the old-timers are out of the way, would surely change a lot of things.
I'm surprised the stain of loser-dom hasn't stuck to Hillary when considering how thoroughly the Obama campaign came from out of nowhere ("this guy would have been getting us coffee") to embarrass her the last time around.
You Hillary haters, could you all stop talking about her until she formally announces yes or no?
I don't see that the Clintons really worry that much about their party. Which is to say that if she doesn't run, it will be because they think that she will lose, or that it will be to hard to win, or to rule. She is showing her age, there are questions about her health, and she is likely to have to run against someone 15 or so years younger than she. Even Mitt Romney, her contemporary, is much more fit and energetic.
If she runs, I think that it would be completely ego. She is unlikely to have Obama's coat tails, and would have to deal with a Republican House, and maybe even Senate. And, for a woman who seemed primarily driven by greed in her younger years, they have more money now than they could ever spend, or ever have envisioned having. But, maybe in the back of her mind, she may suspect that her co-egoist, and spouse, has already been there, and done that, and may be tempted to engage in a bit of passive aggressive sabotage to reduce the likelihood that he will again have to walk the walk again.
This is a woman ignoring the horrible optics of taking huge payments from colleges for speeches while students are up to their eyeballs in debt to pay for college.
You Hillary haters, could you all stop talking about her until she formally announces yes or no?
Why? Besides, the election is over, and what else should we talk about that is interesting to a lot of the commenters here? I have a suggestion - skip any of Ann's blog entries that mention Hillary! for a bit. Then you won't get offended when we pile on.
Hillary knows how to step aside. That is her best skill. Which is why she is so bitter.
If Clinton were to see that she's going ......... destroy the future development of national-level stars in her party.
I genuinely laughed out loud when I read this. This is last thing on either Hildabeast or Wilhelm Von Slick's collective minds. It's not like we don't have any history on these two characters.
You left out that you started with "Here's my observation"
You Hillary haters, could you all stop talking about her until she formally announces yes or no?
That's pretty convenient for Hillary, isn't it?
I don't hate her, I just think she "ain't no ways" qualified to be president based on the balance of her "accomplishments."
How many, besides the four at Benghazi, of course, have died in Hillary's War? How did Syria work out for her?
Who was Ambassador Steven's rounding up weapons for, anyway, and how does this differ from Iran Contra?
It's reassuring to see the cynicism. Clearly (most of) us have acquired Clinton antibodies. Their moves seem so quaint, mechanical, so old fashioned.
If only someone had ideas that were new, fresh and organic.
It's just that trying to think like Hillary means not even considering anything beyond the fact that everyone else owes you something. She put in her time taking humiliation from her scum husband, and serving Obama, the guy who humiliated her in her last election (where she was owed the presidency). She doesn't much like the things politics requires--being interviewed, public speaking, having to pretend things. But after putting all that time and effort in, how can she not feel that she is owed?
So the idea of quitting while she's still popular with half the country (and maintaining the fiction that she had the presidency in the bag, but retired gracefully to make room for others) may make sense for human beings who can think of anything besides themselves. But do you have a single example of Hillary ever thinking of anyone besides herself?
How weaksauce, anodyne, namby-pamby is your "could!" She could commit honorable seppuku, too. But in case you were wondering, she won't do that either. Fact being, one is as likely as the other.
Pm, why should we stop talking about her? What would be the point?
Are you trying to help her? In that case I'm sure that the less said about her the better. I personally would like to prevent her from running, or to defeat her if she runs, and if talking about her will facilitate that then I'm all for it, otherwise not. That's where I stand where do you stand?
The Democrat's problem isn't Hillary, it's the fact that the Democrat Party can only travel in one direction politically - leftward. There is no constituency left in the Democrat Party to lead or to follow towards a more center position. The blue dogs are almost gone and the working class Democrats are fleeing to the GOP.
MikeR said...
"Assume the GOP is due for its time in the presidency"
No one thinks like that. Assuming that the Senate was still in GOP control, for one thing, that would mean dismantling of the ACA (if it hadn't happened already). It would mean a lot of very unpredictable changes, that would terrify any progressive.
I am still in a little state of wonderment that as recently as 2004 the GOP held all three parts of the government. They did pretty much nothing with it. Well, some Supreme Court justices. But the world is changed; today's GOP, assuming enough of the old-timers are out of the way, would surely change a lot of things.
You assume they will change a lot of things, I assume I'm going to be stabbed in the eye.
Hope you're right.
The constituencies are still there. It is the leadership that has become a single-minded clique playing the drums in an echo chamber.
Hillary will run because she has the media and Hollywood behind her. She is undeniably unlikable, the nation is tired of re-treads... but the media & Hollywood will still prop her up, fill her with Botox, and swoon at her every empty cliché and empty "workhorse" bromide.
The New York Times and the Daily Show are already campaign headquarters for her.
"Hillary will run because she has the media and Hollywood behind her."
That may be enough to convince her to run--the coccoon usually does blind people to what the real world has in store for them. More than that, the Democratic party has seemingly bowed down to her inevitableness, just as they did eight years ago. Had it not been for Obama having the gall to challenge that, she would have waltzed to the nomination and probably the White House.
This time, two things stand in her way:
1) After 8 years, voters will have tired of the Dems and be more likely to let the GOP have a turn. Plus, the unpopular incumbent this time is the same in whose cabinet she served.
2) Being "inevitable" means any journalist who wants to make a name will be gunning hard to find something on the Clintons, and their editors--leftist as they may be--won't be able to resist anything that sells copy.
Her facade will crack. The question is will the GOP be able to capitalize, by not nominating someone who forces most voters to say "Hillary sucks, but that guy scares me more."
Another consideration for Hillary has to be that enough Republican senators were elected in 2014 to make it unlikely that the Dems will take back control in 2016 barring an implausible landslide. Even if she runs and wins, does she really want to be President with the House and Senate in Republican hands for most likely her entire (first, at least) term? She'd get her name on the list, but that's about it.
"You Hillary haters, could you all stop talking about her until she formally announces yes or no?"
Because the only way Hillary can win is if no one looks at her too closely. You know, like Obama. How'd that work out for ya, Scooter?
Regarding the possibility, in general, that Hillary Clinton might someday "act with foresight, grace, and generosity":
It would be more plausible if you could point to a few really good examples. I can certainly point to several dozen counter-examples, though.
"Another consideration for Hillary has to be that enough Republican senators were elected in 2014 to make it unlikely that the Dems will take back control in 2016 barring an implausible landslide."
It's hardly implausible--2016 will have the GOP defending more seats than the Dems, and with fewer pickup opportunities among those seats. The GOP can target Colorado's Bennett (who won a close one last time) and Reid, but Reid is pretty powerful in Nevada. With good candidates, those are possibilities though.
On the other hand, the GOP has to defend Johnson in WI, Toomey in PA, and Kirk in Illinois--all very tough in states that go heavily to the Dems in presidential election years. Less vulnerable but still worrisome targets will include Ayotte in NH, Rubio in FL and Portman in OH (particularly if the last two retire to run for president). If McCain retires, the AZ seat also comes into play.
All this will depend on whether the GOP brand is strong or weak in purple states that year--but a net pickup of 4 seats (which the Dems would need) isn't too much a stretch if things go their way.
McConnell's number one goal should be finding ways to shore up the most vulnerable seats they have, and recruit good candidates for the few pickup opportunities the GOP has.
If I were a Democrat, whether a centrist DLC type or a Warren-style progressive, I'd be fairly distressed about the fact that the entire party seems to be cowed by the Clintons to such an extent that the money is drying up for any alternate candidates, and no first tier candidates are emerging. With the GOP having both houses of Congress (and one of them being an almost lock for the rest of the decade at least), and a 5-4 conservative lean in the Supreme Court (with Ginsburg on the cusp of retirement), and with Obama about as popular as Bush was at this point in his term, I'd be pretty worried about the party giving the nomination to a polarizing politician with poor political skills without a fight. If anything, the Dems need a solid candidate, who can win on Purple or even Red ground, and go toe to toe in the event the GOP nominates someone formidable (which is possible, as we have no idea who they might nominate).
The Dems also need to have a real primary as a way to determine the long term direction of the party (go for moderates, aim for the Occupy crowd, use racial appeals to bump up their numbers among blacks and hispanics?). They didn't have that in '12, with no primary, and in '08 there was little clash on substance--just Hillary's inevitability vs. Obama's audacity (it's hard to remember any substantive issues on which they disagreed--they were both cautiously anti-war at that point).
The GOP has their chance now, and if they act smart in the next two years they could take the White House and hold on to the Senate. The key will be to undercut the scare tactics focused on their control of the government. But if they do win, it's hard to see how the Clintons, by using enemies lists and arm twisting to shut everyone else out of the running, don't get blamed for wrecking their party and destroy their long term brand among the Left.
Althouse is anti-Hillary. It's blatantly obvious, it's been obvious for a very long time, and it's shocking that conservatives refuse to believe it. She's even more anti-Bill Clinton.
Isn't it insulting to believe that Althouse will vote for Hillary Clinton because they look vaguely alike? That's what it amounts to.
OMG Althouse voted for Obama. Then she didn't. Therefore she must vote for Hillary. Because, reasons.
You Hillary haters, could you all stop talking about her until she formally announces yes or no?
After all of your railing on Obama and his failed policies, it's amazing you would still support his evil twin who has her own trail of dead bodies and worse baggage. Not to mention her doing everything she could to protect her misogynist raping perv of a husband and attacking those women who dared speak out against his unwanted advances. But then, she has a long history of blaming the victim, starting with a little girl, who was raped by her client, who she got off and laughed about it.
Hillary was a part of Obama's administration and is as much to blame for the crap that has come from it, as he is. If she opposed any of it, she could have quit in protest, and would have attracted some respect. But she didn't. She prefers the status of doormat to awful men.
As long as Hillary is pretending not to run we'll pretend not to criticize.
For Hill to star in “The Inevitable Nominee, Part 2”, one has to assume that Joe Biden is too smart or too loyal to something beyond himself to run against her.
Evidence strongly suggests this is not the case.
Let's watch what the Democrats in Congress do now -- perhaps not the lame ducks, but the ones who will face the voters in 2 or 4 years. If they hang loyally to Obama's obstructionism, as they have while they controlled the Senate, then maybe Hillary! will offer the best chance of bestowing on the Party the third Obama term (no, I don't take Biden seriously; do you?).
But if the Democrats in Congress are looking for a lifeline, it's not likely to be Hillary! (I doubt it will be Princess Summer-Fall-Winter-Spring either, but who knows?) Someone new? Jim Webb? Cory Booker? Mike Beebe? Someone old? Governor Moonbeam? That's when the game will get interesting.
No sane person thinks Joe Biden can win.
So, he thinks he can win.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा