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.
This is old news. Hillary has been a supporter of gay rights for quite some time. Her "gay rights are human rights" speech covered this ground in 2011. In 2008, gays within the Democratic Party generally supported her. She released this video today:
Dozens of attacks on US embassies have taken place over the past 30 years. The attack at Benghazi has the distinction of being the one purely political football in the whole batch.
The opposition's hook was that initial reports were later changed as new information became available. Their critique basically boiled down to the administration not getting hysterical enough fast enough. Even though the President called the attack an "act of terror" the day after the incident, he's to be faulted for not actually using the word "terrorist"--a distinction without a difference if ever there was one.
Yesterday, the administration's critics had their chance. The Secretary of State met with Congressional committees to testify on Benghazi. With HIllary's recent health problem, dubbed "Benghazi flu" by some, they even had an extra month to prepare.
The opposition hoped to tarnish the administration, and, as the run-up to 2016 begins, take Secretary Clinton down a notch as well. They failed miserably. The Secretary of State was calm and professional, flicking off her opponent's barbs with, at times, tact and polish, and, at other times, righteous anger.
Meanwhile, yet another poll shows HIllary Clinton to be the most popular political figure in the United States.
Hillary Clinton leads among presidential candidates for 2016 by a sizeable margin. She leads Vice President Biden among Democrats by a 57%-16% margin. Seven other Democrats were included in the Public Policy Polling (PPP) poll, but none of them broke 5%.
Among Republicans, Marco Rubio narrowly led Paul Ryan, 19%-16%. Baptist grifter, Mike Huckabee, came in at 15%. Jeb Bush, Chris Christie, Bobby Jindal, and Susan Martinez (Governor of New Mexico) were at 14%.
Hillary led against all of them. Chris Christie, currently riding a tide-let of enthusiasm, came closest, but still came up 2 points short. Christie, however, has virtually no hope of being nominated.