General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsHow Obama is Setting the Stage for Hillary in 2016
Claims that the Democrats' leftward shift will hurt Hillary Clinton in 2016 miss the pointliberals disappointed with Obama's concessions will elect to a warrior. By David FrumPeter Beinart says the Democratic party is shifting to the left. He's right. He says that this shift spells trouble for Hillary Clinton in 2016. He's wrong. Or anyway, it's well within Hillary Clinton's power to prove him wrong.
People who write about politics are adept with words and excited by political ideas -- that's true almost by definition. But those are unusual skills and interests, even among people who care a lot about politics. Most of us are less moved by ideas than by emotions; more by music than by words.
From this point of view, "left" and "right" are not logical categories. They are not about policy, not about programs. They are about about identity, about tribes, about loyalty.
And it is from this point of view that President Obama has been found wanting by many liberals and progressives. He's just not a tribal guy! Since he emerged on the national scene back in 2004, Barack Obama's big guiding idea has been the unreality of American political divisions: "There's not a liberal America and a conservative America; there's the United States of America." Campaigning against Hillary Clinton in 2008, Obama again and again denounced the "old politics" practiced by certain unnamed Democratic politicians, promising instead a new era of consensus and progress. "We can be a party that tries to beat the other side by practicing the same do-anything, say-anything, divisive politics that has stood in the way of progress; or we can be a party that puts an end to it." He warned against "nominating a candidate who will unite the other party against us" and urged instead that Democrats choose "one who can unite this country around a movement for change" i.e., him.
That plan went pretty spectacularly wrong.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/09/15/how-obama-is-setting-the-stage-for-hillary-in-2016.html
DebJ
(7,699 posts)Beacool
(30,250 posts)The Straight Story
(48,121 posts)Many feel there wasn't enough change and going back to Hillary would be a step back in that regards.
Nothing personal against her, I just don't see her winning the primary (if she even decides to run).
On her upside, she has been around politics and probably has more qualifications than anyone else running, from living in the WH for 8 years and making connections to congress to sos. Not worried about what the right thinks about her (they will hate anyone with a D) and staunch dems will vote for who gets the nomination, it will come down to undecided voters and how she can play out to them. Again, if she can win over folks to win the primary.
Beacool
(30,250 posts)She won the votes of more registered Democrats than Obama did. Remember that some states hold open primaries.
As for the primaries, if she runs, she wins. This is not 2008.
Whisp
(24,096 posts)Iraq war vote, primaries in 2008m etc., etc.,. Shuck ems, blew it, but I can try again!
Builds confidence in her abilities. (I got eyes too!)
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)Then we're screwed.
polichick
(37,152 posts)Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)Hawks of a feather....
Oilwellian
(12,647 posts)David Frum? Really? Didn't he learn anything about why Hillary failed the first time?
ProSense
(116,464 posts)ProSense
(116,464 posts)http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/08/06/hillary-clinton-s-big-challenges-in-2016-will-come-from-the-left.html
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)to weigh in as an "expert" on 2016.
pampango
(24,692 posts)I would change that sentence to: Most republicans are less moved by evidence than by emotions.
Confirmation bias.
Laelth
(32,017 posts)-Laelth