Hillary Clinton drew about 1000 party faithful to the ballroom of the Radisson Hotel. People who wanted to see the next President had to sign up to work phones or canvass in order to get in.
In a pointed reference to GOP Senate candidate, Cory Gardner (and also Romanoff's opponent, Mike Coffman), Clinton said: “This election is important to everybody, but it’s especially important to women of Colorado. These Democrats will never shame or judge a woman for decisions that are deeply complex and personal. They won’t tell voters of Colorado one thing about personhood and tell their colleagues in Washington the opposite about personhood.”
What Hickenlooper, Udall, and Romanoff are for: raising the minimum wage, womens' reproductive health, Social Security and Medicare, equal pay for equal work, affordable student loans, immigration reform, clean energy and a clean environment.
At the mention of Too Small to Fail, a titter ran through the crowd as they recalled the similar expression "too big to fail". Hillary gave a wry smile, said simply "yeah, I know," and continued on.
She announced that the American Academy of Pediatrics will recruit all 60,000 pediatricians in the country to promote early reading to children, and Scholastics will donate 500,000 books.
At least three times, she used the expression "read and sing" to children. I consider this a reflection of Ms. Clinton's Methodist background. It was John Wesley, the founder of Methodism, who encouraged Methodists to "sing lustily and with good courage."
Plus, as a pastor, I've noticed a general decline in public singing, or even the ability to sin. I was cheered that Mrs. Clinton included the importance of singing as well as reading.
“(President Obama) gave the order to do whatever was necessary to support our people in Libya. It was imperative that all possible resources be mobilized immediately. … When Americans are under fire, that is not an order the Commander in Chief has to give twice. Our military does everything humanly possible to save American lives — and would do more if they could. That anyone has ever suggested otherwise is something I will never understand.”
Those who exploit this tragedy over and over as a political tool minimize the sacrifice of those who served our country,” Clinton writes in the gripping chapter, “Benghazi: Under Attack.”
Casting doubt on the motivations of congressional Republicans who have continued to investigate the attacks, including with an upcoming House select committee, Clinton continues: “I will not be a part of a political slugfest on the backs of dead Americans. It’s just plain wrong, and it’s unworthy of our great country. Those who insist on politicizing the tragedy will have to do so without me.”
Nor Elizabeth Warren either. Norm Scheiber makes the case for a Warren candidacy in an article this week for the New Republic.
It's not going to happen. Every cycle, the uber-liberal wing of the Democratic Party searches and searches for an alternative to the so-called "establishment" candidate. Remember Jerry Brown? Paul Tsongas? Gary Hart? Bill Bradley? Howard Dean? (Were any of these fellows really more liberal than Bill Clinton, Walter Mondale, John Kerry, or Al Gore?)
Elizabeth Warren is the uber-liberal candidate du jour, and a fine United States senator, but there's no way she wrests the nomination from Hillary Clinton. Hillary's coalition will be the same as last time--hispanics, the elderly, a sizeable chunk of the liberals, and women. Plus, this time, add African-Americans.
Hillary's critics say she was the inevitable nominee last time, and look what happened. Yes, look. Against a heavily-touted phenom, she won two-thirds of the primaries--the only large state primary won by then-Sen. Obama was his home state of Illinois.
Obama narrowly won the nomination contest by building up delegates in red state caucuses, and then prevailing through sheer muscle in the party's Rules Committee. (Hillary was supposed to be the insider power-broker, but you don't get more "inside" than control of the party's Rules Committee.)
President Obama is the one nomination contest the uber-liberals were able to win. They combined their 20% of the Democratic vote with the 25% represented by African-Americans. This time, African-Americans will be for Hillary.
Chris Christie is the toast of northeastern Republicans this week, all six of them. His claim to fame is being able to pull a majority of the young, African-americans, Latinos, and women. For Republicans interested in reaching out beyond their base, all six of them, Christie is The Man. Christie would lose to Hillary in all those voter groups, even in New Jersey.
“[Expletive] the White House Correspondents’ Dinner.” —Hillary Clinton, responding to the suggestion that it would be suspicious if President Obama skip the White House Correspondents' Dinner on the weekend the Osama bin Laden raid took place, according to Mark Liebovich's upcoming book on D.C., This Town.
Charles Pierce at Esquire turns his eye to Hillary Clinton's 2016 candidacy and reminds us that, while Hillary is riding a wave of popularity at the moment, the same people--"the vast right wing conspiracy"--who tried to destroy her husband will surely be on the prowl again and, indeed, already are.
The Clintons are not naive and take all this for granted. They are quite experienced in dealing with the fever swamps of American politics. They do not suffer from the fantasy that bipartisanship is possible under the current political arrangements. They understand that the only way to deal is to win.
Which they are quite good at, and which is why they are so detested in some quarters. They don't run from the room at the first whiff of political gunpowder. Quite the contrary, in fact. They rally to it.
Politics ain't beanbag, in other words. Some people know this and accept it. Others go chasing after what Sharon Dymond calls "Bipartisan, the delusional dog." This is one reason Clinton has cleared the field on the Democratic side. Rank and file Democrats know that the Clintons can deal with the onslaught and come out winning.