The case against Hillary
An admirer explains: A campaign based on her inevitability and entitlement would crash and burn like it did in 2008
BY JOAN WALSH
As November’s election results sink in and the size of President Obama’s victory becomes clearer – he won 332 electoral votes and more than 51 percent of the popular vote — Democrats are uncharacteristically giddy about 2016. Not only is demography on the party’s side, with the share of the young, female and non-white vote rising almost every year, but destiny seems to be, too. Our first black president could be succeeded by our first female president, since the party’s star, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, would immediately become the frontrunner for the nomination, and for election, if she decides to run.
I supported Hillary Clinton in 2008. Smarter people than me believe she will run in 2016, despite her protests, and I mostly hope she does. Chances are I would support her again. There is no other strong certain candidate in the field. Vice President Biden and New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo are likely to stay out of the race if she runs. Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley probably would, or should, too. He doesn’t have the stature to successfully challenge her. And there’s no obvious liberal or progressive star to date. Talk about a run by, say, Massachusetts Senator-elect Elizabeth Warren seems premature to me, as much as I admire her: Let’s give her a little bit of time in the Senate to make a difference before pushing her on the national stage. Of course, it’s still quite early, and an inspiring figure may well emerge that could give Clinton an energetic run from the left. Almost nobody was betting on Sen. Barack Obama on Dec. 4, 2005. So we’ll see.
I understand why some Democrats are giddy over the chance of a Clinton candidacy; I’ve gotten caught up in it occasionally, too. She’s the most popular political figure in the country, on either side of the aisle. And if Obama could pass her the baton in 2016, we’d get a chance at a 21st century New Deal, a 12 to 16 year Democratic era (maybe even more) that could eventually rival Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s in accomplishments. It would be powered by an electorate that polls say is more liberal than at any time in modern history, with an appetite for activist domestic government.
But it’s not just those with a bent for activist domestic government who see the thrill of a Hillary race. The activist national security wing of the Democratic Party seems high on a Hillary run, too. The New Yorker’s David Remnick took their temperature at big donor Haim Saban’s annual forum over the weekend, and found participants swooning over Hillary 2016. “Everyone had a theory of which they were one hundred percent certain. There wasn’t much doubt about the ultimate direction. 2007-8 was but a memory and 2016 was within sight. She’s running,” Remnick wrote Monday. He described a fawning video tribute to Clinton that summed up the case for her 2016 candidacy:
read more:
http://www.salon.com/2012/12/04/the_case_against_hillary/
= new reply since forum marked as read
...doesn't it? Do they just convene once every 4 yrs at election time and then slink back off into the populace or to the Caymans to be with their money? Just wondering... Off to see the wizard for me... totally exhausted. Y'all be nice to each other..
Two historical candidates were running and one prevailed over the other. I don't think that 2016 will be another repeat of 2008. Frankly, I think that it'll be hard enough for a Democrat to win the WH after having it for 8 years. The Republicans managed it with Bush Sr., but he lost to Clinton 4 years later. I think that Hillary is the one candidate that transcends party lines. She has won the respect of many who would not have voted for her in the past, including some Republicans.
Thanks for the advice. We'll see what happens in a couple of years and whether she changes her mind about running.
Where has she once said that she thinks that she would be inevitable in 2016? So far, she's been telling everyone that she's not running. Once again the media is pushing that idea; on TV, on the radio, in print and on the blogs, they are saying it everywhere.
As for 2008, Hillary lost by a hair to the "hope and change" candidate, but that does not mean that her supporters stopped believing that she would have been the better choice and hope that she will give it another shot in 2016 and make history.
Nice seeing you online.
So was Mitt Romney, for that matter. Their best candidate was Huntsman and he got no traction in the primaries. They wanted kooks like Bachmann, Gingrich or the Pizza guy. Choosing someone too far right is as much of a death knell as choosing someone too far left. Neither extreme could get elected in a general election. One more reason why I hope that Hillary runs in 2016. She has by now wide appeal, even among some Republicans; she's a left to center moderate and her celebrity status is an added plus, just as it is as SOS. It will be hard enough for a Democrat to win in 2016 after 8 years of a Democrat in the WH. I think that Hillary can overcome that barrier.
It's great seeing you. I hope that all is well in CT.
What's your point?
I was not a Hillary supporter in 2008. In fact, if you go re-read my posts from then, you'll probably see I had a decidedly anti-Hillary tone. Even so, I know the next big job for Democrats in the coming years is going to be preserving Obama's legacy domestically. That's what I want and that's what 2016 will be all about. So, as a Democrat, a liberal, and an Obama supporter, I'm of the idea that the candidate who has the best chance at winning should get the nod. I don't think Hillary would be near the reactionist some on DU believe - though I'll readily admit you could probably find more liberal candidates out there.
I guess the question comes down to this: do you want to run a liberal, say, someone like Gillibrand or Warren, even though they may be an underdog - or do you want to run a left-leaning Hillary who is almost definitely a lock? It's a tough choice and I'm actually not going to berate people who feel we should go with a liberal ... or someone else. That's what the primaries are all about. But from my perspective, I'm going to be looking at a few things entering 2016.
Democrats will have held the White House for eight years. Rarely, especially in modern times, has a party held the White House more than eight years. In fact, going back to Hoover's loss in 1932, only twice has the same party held the WH for more than two consecutive elections - FDR-Truman (a total of 20 years, five terms) and Reagan-Bush (a total of 12 years, three terms). Now, Bush won solely because of running as Reagan's third term. Had Bob Dole or Pat Robertson won the primaries that year over Bush, and it's likely Dukakis is the 41st president. But because Bush was associated with Reagan, as his vice-president, and had immense visibility, he had an advantage of overcoming Republican fatigue. Similarly, in 2000, had Gore decided not to run for whatever reason, and Bradley won the nomination, it's likely Bush wins that election by a far wider margin than Gore. Gore, even if he removed himself from the Clinton administration, still had connections to it and nearly won (did win) - but most any other Democrat probably would have lost to Bush that year... though that would make for an interesting debate.
My point? Hillary is unlike any potential candidate we've ever had because her name alone attracts a huge amount of support. Yes, she has her detractors and certainly could fire up the Republican base ... but I see no one, at least this election cycle, that could go up against a Bush or Christie and win. In an election this important, we need a sure-thing.
Then again, polls may change my mind. In 2006, most everyone felt Obama stood little chance of beating John McCain.
But right now? Hillary in 2016.
You crap on any and every Clinton post. So forgive me if I don't give a flying fig what you have to say on the subject.
She was 71 years old when she became president of Israel.
Give me a break!!!!
