I agree with Seth Masket that Hillary Clinton doesn’t have to worry overly-much that the public will reject her simply because they are tired of seeing her face. As we saw near the end of her stint as Secretary of State, the risk for Hillary has always been that she would burn out, not fade away. She will be quite elderly for a candidate seeking a first-term as president, so this is not a small consideration.
The more common objection to her candidacy that I hear from Democrats is that they are tired of having to select between Clintons and Bushes, as if this country is run by dynastic families rather than ordinary citizens. That is a type of weariness with Hillary, but it isn’t overexposure, exactly.
Probably the greater risk, at least in the primaries, is an ideological one. The Democratic Party is moving in a progressive and leftward direction, and Clinton needs to navigate the change somehow without seeming to be a chameleon or a hypocrite, or somehow discrediting the presidency of her husband. That can be a little road bump or a giant hurdle, depending on the strength and political positioning of her opponents.
If her campaign seems stale and anachronistic, it’s possible that is just won’t have the appeal it needs to carry her to the nomination.
She needs a lot of new blood on her team.
I do think that team will be different – though it won’t come together till next year.
Question for you though – will President Obama’s team be considered “new blood?” That’s who appears likely to run her campaign.
She’s not off to a great start considering she waited until it was absolutely safe to get behind the Iranian negations. To put it plainly, I do not think we’d be interacting with them in the same way if she was still at State…
She’s shameless. No, we wouldn’t. Of course Obama was considering an attempt to resolve differences with Iran before his reelection and Hillary Clinton was almost certainly in on his plans. It’s very unlikely that she would have supported him. Macho behavior is her game. Hence her ‘retirement’. Otherwise she would still be Secretary of State regardless of any presidential ambitions because Ambition trumps everything else for her, it seems. I find even just the possibility that she might get in the White House appalling. The Billarys are so transparently, simplistically oportunistic they disgust me.
She’s shameless. No, we wouldn’t. Of course Obama was considering an attempt to resolve differences with Iran before his reelection and Hillary Clinton was almost certainly in on his plans. It’s very unlikely that she would have supported him. Macho behavior is her game. Hence her ‘retirement’. Otherwise she would still be Secretary of State regardless of any presidential ambitions because Ambition trumps everything else for her, it seems. I find even just the possibility that she might get in the White House appalling. The Billarys are so transparently, simplistically oportunistic they disgust me.
Try to imagine her going to Tehran and wearing the obligatory kerchief: a potential US president in a kerchief, even for the joys of peace and trade (oil and natural gas)! Never, not over anyone’s dead body. But Kerry can go without creating a comparable stir.
Been there, done that. Do a Google image search for “hillary head scarf” then follow the links back to all the faux controversies over her respecting local customs when she visits Muslim countries.
If she went to Iran it would not be a faux controversy. I’m not goin to waste my time.
no woman president for you I guess
That’s a bad guess.
I’m not automatically opposed to her but I want to see a very different message. Maybe I’m naive.
The more common objection to her candidacy that I hear from Democrats is that they are tired of having to select between Clintons and Bushes, as if this country is run by dynastic families rather than ordinary citizens.
I’m curious to know whether you actually hear that from ordinary people, rather than just political pros and politics junkies.
There are so many political dynasties in this country — the Landrieus, the Udalls, etc. — that I have a hard time believing ordinary voters care that much. And besid
Good point. I doubt the vast majority of ordinary people pay close enough attention.
It also depends on where a person lives and what they have seen in their regional versions of the problem. Maybe 15 years ago I wouldn’t have cared as much. But since then I’ve seen some disasters because of a lame second member of a political family gaining office.
I hear it more than any other comment.
Me too, Especially in Illinois politics. “No more Daley’s. No more Madigan’s. No more Cullerton’s.” And this is from people who would rather eat broken glass than vote for Oberweiss, Joe Walsh, or Kinzinger.
And yet, we still have Daleys, Bushs, Clintons, and the like.
Methinks non-political junkies don’t pay attention until right around election day, and then hold their nose and vote down party lines, most of the time.
Personally, I’d like Bernie Sanders, but that ain’t happening this century, so I’ll take a neo-liberal Emperor over a straight fascist one.
There’s a difference?
I agree. I think another word for ‘dynasty’ is ‘brand.’
We love us some brands.
To add to your point, people who reach voting age in 2016 will have been born in 1996. They won’t remember the first Clinton presidency. Monica Lewinsky will be a note in a textbook for them.
The two Bush administrations sandwiched the single Clinton administration, but if Hillary is elected in 2016, it will have been two re-elected presidents in between her and her husband.
Say what?
There was George HW Bush. Then there was Bill Clinton. Then there was George W. Bush.
I hope it was clear that I meant the administrations of the two men, not the two terms of a single president.
Young people are notoriously unreliable voters. Like it or not, the most reliable voters, in terms of turnout, are we despised “Old White Males”. And here in Illinois, we can keep voting even after we are dead!
Vote early, and vote often. Especially if you’re dead.
Should make that the Illinois state motto.
I find it more acceptable on the state and local level. really do not want more of the Bush dynasty especially. probably hurts the presidential dynasty idea that in the instances we’ve had the second generation was inferior to the first, so it’s not like, say, Mozart and his Dad, for example.
I’m ordinary people.
Well at the very least Clinton’s are better than Bushes as far as presidency candidates go. That being said if Hilary want’s to refresh her image up a bit, why doesn’t she follow an intermittent fasting diet? Nothing spells rejuvenation like losing 20 pounds…
If Hillary wants to freshen up her image, why doesn’t she stand up and make a call for truly progressive policies? We’re electing a president, not a fashion model.
Really?
Who says?
AG
You really believe that, don’t you Booman. I guess it’s true, in a sense. I mean…there is so much territory leftward from the place that is now occupied by the almost totally centrist DemRat Party now, and the rightward areas are certainly poretty well occupied already. Where else could it move?
Oh. I just noticed. You didn’t say how fast it was moving.
Nevermind.
Yore friend…
Emily Litella
P.S. The Party Is Over.
Both of ’em.
Only the slackers are left now. The slackers and their controllers.
Yawn.
Whut’s nu, pussycat?
Not very damned much, apparently.
Not very damned much.
However, it has been worth a chuckle or two over the past 5 years to listen to the whole hoard of Rep’s wax high praise on the Clinton years as those where they had a Pres who would negotiate and ‘allowed’ them to get so many grand bargains in place.
Makes for good sound bites when they try and turn on Hillary during campaign season.
Is it wrong I don’t want to vote for Hillary? I thought it over and I just don’t think one more Dynasty family will do any good for our country. Yes. it might be a bigger risk to nominate another person w/ little ties/connections to Washington, but I just can’t seem to find the passion to raise that sign that says Hillary 2016. Forgive me DNC Prosecution Court, I have thought this through & I still come up w/ no.
Would it be better to vote for the Republican?
Or to sit it out, even if the Republican wins?
You can either be a part of changing shit, or you can sit out and shut up.
Those are your two options. Sorry, first past the post elections is what we have. Work with it, or don’t work at all.
I think his point is the is no change. I know it’s my point.
She hasn’t even announced yet and I’m already tired of hearing about her.
The more common objection to her candidacy that I hear from Democrats is that they are tired of having to select between Clintons and Bushes, as if this country is run by dynastic families rather than ordinary citizens.
I’ve been hearing that mainly from Beltway pundits, and people who stay plugged into what they have to say.
Probably the greater risk, at least in the primaries, is an ideological one. The Democratic Party is moving in a progressive and leftward direction, and Clinton needs to navigate the change somehow without seeming to be a chameleon or a hypocrite, or somehow discrediting the presidency of her husband. That can be a little road bump or a giant hurdle, depending on the strength and political positioning of her opponents.
The challenge is whether the media will let her get away with such an evolution. The electorate themselves, even primary voters, would be more than willing to give her a pass for altering her positions to keep up with the times, and in fact might not even notice without having it pointed out to them repeatedly first.
Either way, it comes down to the media and the narrative they decide to run with. If they’re bored with HRC, they can take her down even more easily than they did Gore.
No matter that Bill Clinton’s presidency was two decades ago, that the country, its voters, and its needs are much different than they were two decades ago. Might as well ask if she can change without seeming to be a chameleon or a hypocrite, or somehow discrediting the Eisenhower Republicanism of her youth and her parents.
The main issues are age, stamina, and blocking the growth of the bench for another 8 years.
The main advantage are the Republicans are already buying her in evitability and starting the smear campaign early. By 2016, they will have run out of Dick Morris’s material and have exhausted their powers of creative invention. Elizabeth Hurley seems to be the current favorite GOPer trope.
She should run as an Eisenhower Republican!
She is. Thus to the left of Obama.
AG
You know, I often think that perhaps liberals/progressives/anti-imperialists need to carpetbag the Republican party.
Sure, it would take a little time to get there, and you’d have a hell of a lot of ‘splainin’ to do, but there it is.
Watch,
If the RatPubs keep on heading towards Rand Paul in 2016…in my own opinion about a 20%-30% chance now that Christie is toast, given Paul’s impeccable small government credentials…you will see “liberals/progressives/anti-imperialists” flocking the the Ratpub side of this presently sinking ship of state.
A new alliance is being born as we watch. Even the power of the centrist media will not be able to stem the tide.
“TO THE LIFEBOATS!!!”
Bet on it.
AG
And President Paul will turn to those progressives and say “In exchange for your help in ending these wars, and in closing the NSA, I’ll help you ram through a Republican-held House and Senate a guaranteed minimum income, and a 70% top marginal rate of income tax. Oh and legal dope.
Clinton will 69 in 2016. She appears to be in good health, active, and perhaps a bit over her ideal weight. This is the age when you really start to be able to tell if you had a healthy middle age or not. Yes, 69 for someone is inactive, quite overweight (Christie), in poor health (Cheney, possibly Biden?) will really show the signs of aging rapidly. But for someone who is in as good of shape as Hillary looks, not such a problem.
http://www.drmirkin.com/fitness/mid-life-fitness-and-diet-habits-improve-quality-of-life.html
I cringe when women are said to be “too old” for the job. When exactly is the time for them? Certainly, if you run when you are young, you will not be taken seriously. Men can run at 25 and win for office (see Brendan Boyle); a woman running that young would constantly be asked if she were forgoing having children.
I’m definitely not sold on Hillary. In fact, I probably like our obviously aging VP much more…but please, please examine your assumptions about the correlation between age and fitness.
As a middle aged woman I think Hillary is too old, and my kids think she’s ancient. We feel the same way about Biden. But this has nothing to do with their ages. Elizabeth Warren, for example, is only two years younger than Hillary, but she doesn’t feel too old. It’s about policies, not bodies.
Both Bush II and the Clintons were defined in a context of the Vietnam era (Gore, Kerry also). for me that’s what makes Clinton too old. but I don’t have that perception of Biden since his personal history as a single Dad kind of puts him in a category of his own.
Statements like this about normal-weight people drive me nuts. 🙂 Hillary looks to me like her weight is totally normal or maybe a little over the old-fashioned BCS of 25 cutoff. She is far, far from the degree of obesity that would significantly change her projected health or longevity.
Here’s an article (hat tip to Campos):
http://www.nutritionj.com/content/10/1/9
She might be advised to lose weight for a campaign, but that would be an issue of sales rather than health.
Sorry, Rachael, that is not current science. Even being a little overweight is deleterious to your health.
Even a “slightly overweight”, not obese, BMI of 27.5 raises your risk of dying from a heart attack by 50%. Overweight is an extremely serious health issue.
http://www.drmirkin.com/public/ezine122610.html
(This website reviews current medical literature.)
Hillary Clinton also has access to phenomenal health care, so I’m sure she’ll be very healthy a good long time, no matter what her weight.
The last two presidents have been extraordinarily fit and I think we’ve come to expect that in a president.
I think people here are greatly overestimating the difficulties Hillary will face getting the Dem nomination. Bill is wildly popular among Democrats – I think a clear majority of Democrats would be just fine with somebody close to him becoming President.
Democrats are becoming more liberal but the Clintons are sliding along with it and nobody finds it objectionable. Bill is for equal marriage now, for example. Hillary would have even less of a problem – Hillarycare was a more liberal proposal than Obamacare; she WAS pushing comparatively liberal social problems long before it started to become fashionable.
Hillary does have a commanding lead. Something like 1/3 of the people who currently actively support her would have to turn away to even make it possible for somebody else to beat her, and that somebody has to totally swamp everybody else too. Her supporters are perfectly aware Hillary’s no firebreathing liberal and that she’s married to a former president. Those facts will not change their minds; they know them and still like her.
I am holding out hope that former Gov. Howard Dean will run, he was truly a man before his time in 2004.
There’s only room out there for one Democratic former governor of a mostly-white, thinly populated Northern state who’s not as liberal as the internets think he is at a time
President Brian Schweitzer, come on down!
GOPers think that Monica has a new beau named Ben Ghazi.
Great. Gotta share this one. particularly with my not so political husband who’s had lots of chuckles from the “Benghazi” meme.
OT:
That’s CST.
NATO 3 not guilty of terrorism charges, but guilty of lesser charge of mob action.
Guilty of two arson charges but not solicitation of arson.
5 of 7 counts not guilty.
Still can rack up serious jail time if judge sentences maximum.
The state’s attorney really had a bug up her(?) ass at the press conference after the verdict. Just disgusting.
“The Democratic Party is moving in a progressive and leftward direction, and Clinton needs to navigate the change somehow … “
From our perspective she needs to. From her perspective I’m not so sure. Are any of us going to vote for the Republican? That was always the Clinton way of doing things.
Some of the old ones like Robert Reich are good but she has to lose the Stephanopolus and Bowles types.
Regrettably Joe Hill and Bill Haywood are both unavailable for cabinet appointment…
No, but Stiglitz and Reich are and both are former Cabinet members. Also, I would like to see Bernanke at Treasury. He really tried to prop the economy up as much as any FED chairman can.
I’d like to see Howard Dean, former Governor and M.D. at HHS.
Most of all I’d like to see NO REPUBLICANS in the Cabinet.
Correction, Stiglitz was in the Clinton Administration but not the Cabinet.
A friend thinks that Clinton running with Richardson would be unbeatable and bring so many women and Latinos to the polls that the Democrats could retake the House and have a filibuster free Senate.
I’d really like to know what you think of that, Boo. Not ideologically, but from a purely political/electoral view.
Neither one can be counted on to declare property to be theft. Or call on us to expropriate the expropriators.
Not nearly good enough.
To get my vote she has to come out and say something like, “When we championed trade agreements we needed to because America was loosing trade to those who had bilateral agreements (note: reinforcing the original argument Bill made), but we said at the time that the trade agreements would need more protection for the environment and workers. Today we see that these unfettered agreements under Republican crony capitalism have hurt America badly and I pledge that we will modify them to protect the environment and protect workers, both ours and theirs.” Thus pivoting away nicely without accepting blame but going forward to fix the jobs problems. “It’s the Economy, Stupid.”
There was an article last week I think about the Obama election aides saying that HRC is making the same mistake the made before…courting inevitablilty and personal ego over party.
I saw this tweet from David Axelrod
Now I… Key Democratic Group Will Sit Out Midterm Elections
I know this is only one PAC, but shouldn’t all of the being trying to get behind the 2014 push to support Dem in mid-terms.
The DLC is sitting it out again–to make sure that there are absolutely no populists popular enough to win.
In NC, the corrupt Perdue administration Secretary of Commerce is in the primary against Clay Aiken and the national media are already running down Aiken. Regardless or whether Aiken is another Larry Kissell or Heath Shuler, I find the beatdown by establishment failed Democrats interesting.
But, if the President gets a House of Representatives that will work WITH him, then how can Hillary come in and ‘ rescue’ the Dems in 2016?
If Kerry succeeded with both Iran and Israel/Palestine it would force him into contention, especially if anything goes wrong with Clinton’s campaign.
Unfortunately his personality is almost as bad as Romney’s and the more “comfortable in his or her own skin” candidate almost always wins.
good article thank you
Signals To Profit