Boston Globe: Hillary Is Inevitable no Longer

[mylye2222]

http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2014/08/19/hillary-clinton-summer-slide/2pc6mTziecszWDGeZ34jUL/story.html

Hillary Clinton is no longer the inevitable next President of the United States, a summertime development that is not unexpected yet still surprises. Now the question is: Who will be the first to mount a challenge?

Two potential challengers (although both deny they’ll run) hail from right here: liberal firebrand and US senator Elizabeth Warren and our cool and collected governor, Deval Patrick. The interest they’ve attracted is evidence of Massachusetts’ continuing influence in national affairs.

Indeed, even though he keeps saying no, there might be a third Bay State contender in the wings: 2012’s loser, Mitt Romney. After all, Hillary’s problems aren’t only that Democratic knives are becoming unsheathed. Republicans also sense that, with a mainstream nominee, they might actually win in 2016.

[JaydenD]

1. She never was, she never will be. Pack your bags, Hill.

Leave

[mylye2222]

2. Yep.K&R

She just THOUGHT she was......only because she bears a name, she believes that only because of that, she deserves to obtain everything she wants.

[LordGlenconner]

4. While you're at it can I get tomorrow's winning Powerball numbers too?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

15. The reason she's such a lousy candidate is all the baggage she's already carrying.

[JaydenD]

22. Apparently her numbers were sky high rocket material while SoS...

Then she started to speak.... and the plummet began.

She has collected a whole lot more baggage since 2008 and she just isn't strong enough to carry all that stuff and can only hand off so much to Bill.

Too many over the top, really dumb things have passed her 'so intelligent and brilliant' 1% lips since to just fade away into safe obscurity.

[wyldwolf]

32. Apparently, as most know (accept novices), polls numbers level out...

... when one is in a political role.

[stillwaiting]

27. We can do so much better. We need someone who will stand up and implement progressive changes.

She ain't it.

[brooklynite]

3. Again, only folks who've been yelling "inevitability" are the anti-Hillary folks...

Nobody supporting Hillary has been opposed to Primary opponents. Just be realistic that the list won't include Elizabeth Warren who WANTS HILLARY TO RUN.

[AtomicKitten]

29. regarding Elizabeth Warren ....

Two days ago ....

Elizabeth Warren gets "rescued" from question about Hillary 2016.
link: http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/warren-rescued-from-hillary-2016-question

video at 1:58 mark:
http://www.myfoxboston.com/clip/10489763/warren-weighs-in-on-ferguson-market-basket-and-trip-to-israel

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) dodged a question on Tuesday when asked by a local television station whether Hillary Clinton is "the best choice" for the Democratic Party in 2016.

A reporter with Boston's Fox affiliate WFXT asked Warren point blank: “Do you believe Hillary Clinton is still best choice for your party coming up for 2016?"

“You know, Hillary is terrific," Warren said, after a brief pause.

“Is she still the best choice though?” the reporter asked. She then repeated the question once more after the senator appeared to have trouble hearing her.

Just then, as Warren began to respond, what WFXT described as a supporter of the senator appeared by her side and whispered loudly, "We have to go inside now. It's time to go indoors."

"You’re being rescued. The rescuer is here," someone in the crowd said.

[Cha]

33. Interesting.. good find, K~

[Blue_Adept]

5. Please no

Please stop taking from Mass. Please. Deval isn't good enough for the national stage and I don't want to lose Warren after losing Kennedy and Kerry. Let us keep our senators for a few years at least, please?

[closeupready]

23. Well, you can have back Mitt Romney - deal?

[wyldwolf]

6. The piece, or the presentation of it here...

Is confusing two things - the presidency and the dem nomination.

National election polls have tightened, the dem nomination polls not much.

Still, like someone here mentioned, Hillary supporters here have never said she was inevitable for anything.

[The Magistrate]

7. Cheerleaders For Brown, Sir, Are Hardly Go-To Guys For Savvy Analysis....

http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2012/09/20/keane/7YBTv4tEHvS6Mm7z2r1dqK/story.html

"But over the course of the hour-long debate, the senator got better and it was challenger Elizabeth Warren who deteriorated. As Brown spoke, she was smirking and making faces a la
Al Gore.'

"The remainder of the debate — on women’s rights, energy, military intervention, and college education — seemed the better for Brown. His job was to show he can steer a middle course and he did it well. Warren, on the other hand, came across as the more absolutist — even when she and Brown were in agreement. "

[Logical]

8. Really? That proves what? Please list a publication that has never been wrong on an election! Sir!

[The Magistrate]

9. It Demonstrates His Judgement Is Poor, Sir

That he is not a particularly competent observer of the developing political scene. Further columns could be adduced in addition indicating a certain fondness for Brown, putting him solidly in the enemy camp to boot, and suggesting in these comments he is not so much attempting to observe accurately as to make trouble and encourage his own side.

[Logical]

10. Once again, name any columnist who is 100% Sir, or is your point that we should.....

Never read columnists or predictions and should never discuss them on the DU?

[The Magistrate]

13. Pundits Ought To Have Accuracy Averages, Sir, Like Baseball Players Have Batting Averages

They ought to be part of the column headers, and anyone whose predictions do not come in more often than random chance ought to find other work.

I find it saves a good deal of time to pay little attention to the predictions and observations of people who have demonstrated they lack sound judgement and basic sense, and this fellow is solidly in that category.

[L0oniX]

19. Wonderful idea. PolitiFact should do that.

[The Magistrate]

20. I Would Rather Have Our Rachel Handle It, Sir

Were it actually to be done. Ms. Maddow is far superior to Politifact as an arbiter of accuracy.

[Logical]

28. LOL, ok, good luck with that! nt

[fadedrose]

11. I love Obama

Mistakes & all, I believe in his goodness......

Anybody who "throws him under the bus" for any reason cannot get my vote...

Thank you for posting

[mylye2222]

16. You're warmly welcome.

Either for me. Look, he appointed her at State, and she well there demonstrated her abillity of not taking, unlike Kerry, any risk on sensitives issues like , on top of it, Middle East peace process. And, btw, not only does she walk on Obama, but I also do believe, as she's obviously an Israel Sionist side lover, that some part of Kerry's struggles within ultra Rwingers Israeli officials could have been "encouraged" by her advisors. After all, If Kerry would have succeded, she would have less material to boost her State tenure in a prospective primary run....

[fadedrose]

21. When she left State,

they showed a brief meeting between her and Netanyahu on TV where they very very warmly shook hands. He wished her well and said that he hoped to see her again in a NEW position and then it was wink, wink, nod, nod and big sly smiles.

He has her in his pocket.

As long as he's the boss over there, the peace loving people of Israel (and there are many) will not have peace because he makes no concessions. People on both sides of the issue don't hate each other, just each other's governments...very sad.

Poor Kerry, a fair man, has to squeeze his big feet into little shoes..

[mylye2222]

25. Heh, just another proof of her Neocon inclinations!

[Cha]

34. Yeah, that was a dumb move

by Hillary, fadedrose.

[hifiguy]

12. Good

I want no part of a Wall Street corporatist with a neo-con lite foreign policy. Not one part.

[GeorgeGist]

14. Her leadership skills seem in short supply.

[L0oniX]

17. I can hear it now ...if we lose in 2016 it will be because we didn't want Hillary to run. pffft

[wyldwolf]

26. I can hear it now

If we lose in 2016 with Hillary it will be because it was Hillary. If we lose in 2016 with someone else it will be because of any number of conspiracy theories.

In fact if we win in 2016 with Hilary I won't be surprised if the left whines that she cheated.

[LondonReign2]

35. "The Left"

I like how, in your mind, Democrats are no longer "the left". Says it all really. What spew.

[wyldwolf]

36. Oh, yeah, should have said "The Fundamentalist Left"

THAT says it all really.

[LondonReign2]

38. Yup, that definitely says it all about you

[Ricochet21]

18. Warren and/or Bernie

the ones that care about us

[conservaphobe]

24. If Hillary is not inevitable, we will have a Republican president.

That has been my fear.

And a reason for a majority of my support for her.

[Chan790]

31. You can rest easily then.

Though I think I'm going to write a macro so that I can stop having to explain this...basically, despite the desire for horse-races by the media, there is no GOP path to win the White House in 2016 (or even 2020. I won't predict 2024.)

Barring some major substantive change that makes prediction impossible, (and Hillary not-running or running is not a substantive change...I mean the headline on tomorrow's New York Times being "ISIS nukes Manhattan, DC; assassinates Pres./VP. America at War! Pres. Boehner vows to eradicate Islam from face of Earth.&quot there is simply no GOP path to potential victory. To use an old New England euphemism: "You can't get there from here."

We can make some safe assertions about the leanings of most states, regardless of the nominees. Starting from the 2012 Obama EC state-pool...which is pretty close to the nose on those leanings...for the GOP to win, they would have to sweep the big battleground states of OH, FL and VA. (and if we're being honest VA is probably out of reach for them too) But even then, if you look at the map you'll see...that's not enough, the Democrats still hold onto the Presidency narrowly. The GOP must also win away one safe Democratic state. (This was true in 2012 as-well. They target PA...but they're not close in PA. They could target NH or IA or NV or MI...but their odds of winning any of those are remote as-well.)

So now you can stop fearing and you no longer that major reason to support Hillary.

[lovemydog]

37. I agree with your assessment Chan790.

And I feel we should support the candidate we feel will fight the most for our views, rather than for whatever the mass media says is inevitable or the only one to beat a republican, or whatever hogwash it tries to say from the elites.

At this point I support Warren, or anyone firmly more populist than, and to the left of, Hillary Clinton.

[november3rd]

30. Forget Romney

What's-her-name will never go for it.