If former Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer is going to challenge Hillary Clinton for the presidential nomination of the Democratic Party, he is going to have to attack her record. Now, there are a lot of areas to attack because Clinton has played so many roles. Some of those criticisms may seem dated and of limited relevancy to your average Democratic primary voter. Others might strike voters as echoing right-wing talking points. I don’t think that Schweitzer will make headway by talking about the Rose Law Firm, the White House Travel Office, or the suicide of Vince Foster. On the other hand, the failure to adopt a universal health care bill during the Clinton presidency is still a relevant subject, as is Clinton’s vote to authorize the war in Iraq.
Health Care policy and matters of war and national security are extremely important issues to Democratic primary voters. Another important issue is how to regulate the financial services industry. Many Democrats feel that the financial crisis of 2008 and resulting Great Recession were created in large part through efforts at deregulation that occurred during Bill Clinton’s second term in office. There is a limit to guilt by association, but Hillary also has a voting record from her time serving as New York’s junior senator. That voting record can be mined for material that shows her coddling the interests of Wall Street.
Those three issues (ineffectiveness on health care, trust on national security, and being too close to New York bankers) are the most promising areas to drive a wedge between Clinton and a party base that gives her somewhere around a 90% approval rating. So, it doesn’t surprise me that Schweitzer mentioned the Iraq War authorization in Iowa yesterday.
Schweitzer didn’t mention that the presumptive frontrunner for the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination, Hillary Clinton, voted to authorize the war as a U.S. senator representing New York in 2002.
After his speech, asked about Clinton’s vote, Schweitzer answered with a grin, “Did she vote for it? I didn’t keep track. I think there were 21 Democrats who didnt vote for it, she might’ve been one of those.”
At least in print, that remark comes off a little “disingenuous smart-ass” to me, because Schweitzer knows damn well how Clinton voted. But I don’t think it is a dated topic that people are not going to care about.
Ducking nonexistent sniper-fire at Tuzla Air Base in Bosnia? Dated.
Authorizing the invasion of Iraq to look for nonexistent Weapons of Mass Destruction? Not-dated.
And yet the nonexistent sniper fire could do more damage to Clinton, at least in the general against a Republican who’d take savage glee in mocking her. Mockery is a powerful weapon, and that incident is the kind that people will still snicker derisively at. It’s easy to set up for the punchline.
That seems to e an out and out lie, unless she actually came under fire elsewhere and was confused about exactly where. I cannot believe that anyone “forgets” being under fire.
Will anyone hoping to become the next VP candidate go after HRC?
Very pleased Schweitzer is [evidently] running, hope Hillary decides not to (as DerFarm predicted some months back). Schweitzer is positioned to expand the Obama coalition and has many achievements to his credit
Except Schweitzer is way to the right of the Democratic Party on guns and that matters to the Obama coalition. As does his right views on the environment. How is he on women’s issues and immigration?
The Obama coalition is minorities, young voters and women. I don’t see Schweitzer appealing to that crowd at all.
He’s the right on environment? explain your reasoning. and guns? a Western candidate will broaden the coalition because he will help the coasts understand the issues of the prairie and Western states.
Many more people care about jobs than guns, and very very more than care about coal which is dying anyway.
Hilary is vulnerable on jobs because of the trade treaties and the Wall street connections. Populism is about economics not niche Left values. Populism does not equal Liberalism nor Progressiveism.
I see you’re not answering my questions, so I’ll rephrase. Schweitzer on environment? what’s not to like?
Schweitzer on guns? what’s not to like?
Nah, Schweitzer is essentially a gender candidate – he’s running as pro-gun, anti-environment manly man. Maybe he sees an opening there.
But I see it as primarily a male trial balloon.
(Incidentally, the Iraq is certainly part of the permanent record – but I think it fades quite a bit given the foreign policy of Barack Obama and Clinton’s work there).
where are you getting this? has no connection with the actual person? knives are out for Schweitzer already and Hillary still hasn’t said she’s not running?
Gender candidate? because of his record on education you think he’ll appeal to women?
I would also agree that the worst foreign policy decision in our generation doesn’t come with an expiration date. For me her “it takes a president” quip doesn’t either.
And yet above all, what troubles me most about Hillary is that if she wins the office as well as a second term, our children will get to look back at the 36 years between 1988 and 2024 and see that somehow a country of 300 million could find only 3 families to serve as Prez. That offends me on so many levels I don’t want to get started.
But as a Chicagoan who has seen the Daleys, Strogers, Mell-Blagos, as well as W.H./Dubya – it also strikes me that family dynasties don’t work very well for voters.
I don’t think the AUMF will get much traction in 2016, because of her performance as Sec of State.
It will be the closeness to Wall Street that hurts her, and that could carry over to the general. No one really like Wall Street – not Democrats, not Teaturds – no one.
I don’t think Warren runs. But if Schweitzer forces her left on finance, that would be a damned fine thing in my mind.
(I am also hopeful that she didn’t fall as completely under the spell of the Rubinites as did her husband. I always saw Hillary as the more liberal of the two.)
I suspect her regrettable AUMF vote won’t hurt her, no more than McGovern’s vote for the Tonkin Res hurt him in 1972. I think she’s mostly inoculated next time to the extent the issue was effectively used against her in 08 and that matter has been litigated.
Nor will the ancient history of the failure to enact health care 20 years ago damage her, especially with the problems Obama’s ACA has experienced getting passed and implemented.
Her past ties to Wall St however could sting, as 2016 looks to be primarily an election about economic fairness issues.
But how will Schweitzer manage to get much headway with the liberal base as a populist with his Big Coal friendly and NRA friendly positions.
He’s also going to find it hard connecting with women and minorities, where Hillary will dominate the field.
He’s also going to find it hard connecting with women and minorities, where Hillary will dominate the field.
Do I need to remind you about 2008? How about the Alabama Democratic primary for Governor in 2010? Basically, if you can credibly promise to fight for legislation to benefit them, you have a chance of winning their votes. As Booman says, what’s Hillary going to do different from Bill? There is a lot to hammer on there.
Yes Obama came along. Is there another Obama out there for 2016? Unlikely, and it’s certainly not Schweitzer.
As for what she would do differently, you’re getting well ahead of the game. It’s at least a year until she makes an announcement, and we may not get a feel for these things until she hits the stump for candidates next fall.
Meanwhile she’s very smart and independent, and so is not only unlikely to repeat the sorry campaign of 07-8, but is also unlikely to be unaware that the political terrain in the Dem field is shifting away from the Wall St friendly attitudes of Bill’s era.
Just wait for the “I was a lifelong Democrat until Bengazi, but now I’m outraged about Vince Foster”
Hillary’s going to run into problems with minorities especially AAs if she starts attacking Obama to get distance from him. People remember the campaign she ran in 2008 and if she starts looking like she is disrespecting the president after he gave the SoS slot, she’ll be in trouble.
She can’t take the Obama coalition for granted. It sure seems like her supporters think she is entitled to that coalition without question.
That would be pretty stupid. I don’t think it’s likely she’ll set out to alienate most Dem primary voters by taking it to Obama. At worst it would be some mild, between-the-lines distancing here and there, enough to make her her own candidate and not a carbon copy of Obama, not nearly enough though to call her loyalty to O into question.
It would take a major blunder in FP or domestically, which O hasn’t really committed apart from the fumbling on the ACA rollout, to almost force HIllary to dramatically distance herself.
She’s going to need him out there stumping for her if she runs, reassuring some of his liberal base about her, bringing his campaign charisma and excitement to GOTV. Why would she act in ways to make that difficult or impossible?
Hillary doesn’t need distance from Obama. she was his SOS. or are you thinking ACA? pitiful that the repubs think they’ll run on how it’s ruining the country. [take a look at the clip of Mitt when he realizes he’s lost]
The person Hilary needs to get on the good side of if she wants to hold onto Obama coalition completely is Michelle Obama, because the Obama coalition likes Obama, but they LOVE Michelle Obama. There was a reason why they called her the closer on the campaign trail.
I can totally see if Hilary does have to slightly try to seperate herself from Obama, at the very least, she still has Michelle O in her corner.
They are clear examples of Hillary willing to say anything to win and point to one of her greatest weaknesses.
As for the Iraq War, it is definitely a great attack against her because she has yet to admit she was wrong on Iraq.
I don’t care about the Iraqi war vote. Neither do my kids. It’s was pretty obvious that nothing was going to stop that war from happening. I truly don’t believe Hillary was powerful enough at that point to make any difference at all.
Healthcare twenty years ago? We barely made it happen this year.
But being close to the financial sector? That’s a problem. I know she has to let them think she’s on their side, but she damn well better convince me she isn’t. It’s time for the Dems to stand up for the people.
I’ll vote for Hillary if I have to, but I really would prefer to keep the power in the hands of the younger generation. The Clintons just come with so much baggage. There has to be someone out there who is truly ready to move us into new ways of doing things. We need a clean start.
The Iraq vote was hardly an isolated incident for Hillary “I never saw a military action I didn’t love” Clinton. She is a hawk, and always will be. And her husband visited more horrors on the Iraqi people than his predecessor did.
The Iraq War vote epitomizes everything that was wrong with Hillary Clinton as senator (I am a registered Democrat in NY) and why I will never trust her.
I cannot find poll figures, but I know that public opinion did not favor sending troops to Iraq, and I’d be willing to bet that NY State was even more against it than most.
It was so obvious that “the fix was in”, and she was part of it.
The vote itself isn’t the most offensive thing to me.
The most offensive thing is the NON-APOLOGY for said vote.
No ‘ I WAS WRONG’.
After 1 TRILLION dollars and thousands of lost lives and TENS OF THOUSANDS of permanently maimed military men and women who came back home shattered..
She can’t muster up ‘ I WAS WRONG.’
That’s a big one for me.
You better be DAMN good before you get a pass on something this important.
It’s a hell of a long time until 2016. It would not surprise me in the least if after taking a look at the field of folks willing to run against President Invitable that she does not run. The AUMF-Iraq vote did not do in John Kerry in the primaries, it did him in in the general election and not on the merits. There will be lots of voters in 2016 who will not remember what happened 14 years before.
It gets Schweitzer attention right now, but that is about as far as it goes.
And 2014 is a huge election relative to how 2016 shapes up.
Well, the list of willing seems to be Schweitzer, Walter O’Malley, and three-time returning non-champion Joe Biden.
None of those grade-B types is going to scare off Hillary. None polls or will poll remotely close to her. The money people and the top political advisers for hire will look in her direction first.
Eliz Warren or Gillibrand entering might cause her to seriously question things, but that’s an alternate reality. Neither will run at this point.
And this is a little different situation than Gore in the 2002 period, who apparently wanted to run for his third try at the presidency, but was reluctant to once again face competition in the primaries and/or fight for the best advisers.
I just see token opposition to Hillary, most there to nudge her gently, safely slightly leftward, maybe get consideration for VP, but no real threat to the nomination — unless she surprises again by running a clunky, uninspiring general election primary campaign.
I love Warren’s policy and her guts, but she doesn’t have the experience to go up against the Clinton Machine, nor the Right Wing Wurlitzer.
There’ is only one candidate I would be excited to vote for in 2016, and his name rhymes with sherrod brown.
I most decidedly do not want Hillary Clinton. So sick of Hillary and bill. This really is the time to look forward, not backward..
He’d run well and govern well. But he lacks the sort of ego that propels others to self-promote themselves for POTUS. Which is exactly why he’d be better than all those lusting for the office.