Hilary Not Inevitable

General General Discussion
1

So this is not a thread about whether Hilary would be a good president or good for gun owners, so lets not “preach to the choir”.

Spent the weekend in DC - yeah I know. I did have a Spyderco Delica, tactical pen and flashlight, so not too bad. Interestingly enough, DC is up to 650,000 people and down to 89 homicides last year. Seattle is over a million and at 29 (6 by the SPD), but I digress.

I have a family member who is plugged into the democratic machine there and he had some interesting thoughts on Hilary Clintons political prospects. He doesn’t think that Hilary will get the nomination. I was shocked. He said "she is talking about the past, not the future, and democrats don’t like coronations. While she is a woman, she is also not “new” and doesn’t generate the excitement that Obama did in moderates/independents. He also said the following:

Republicans tend to nominate someone whose “turn it is”. Reagan, Bush I, Dole, McCaine, Romney… Only Bush 2 got the lay up… Democrats usually don’t go with the front runner: Obama beat Hillary. Kerry beat Dean, Gore had a tough time with Bradley, Clinton beat Tsongas, Carter beat some dude… Mondale was a sacrificial lamb and knew it. His prediction is that an “un Clinton” state governor will emerge and give her a serious run for her money. He also mentioned that if the Republicans run a non polarizing figure, it will make the democrats much more likely to look for a Clinton alternative. HE was also sure that it wouldn’t be Biden. On the Republican side, he predicted that there would be some guys taking their second turn - which is the tradition - and some upstarts coming in.

At any rate, with all his inevitability talk in the media, I thought it was an interesting historical perspective from an old school democrat political operator.

2

I believe there must be plenty of Dems who don’t like the idea of Hillary as president and who would expend considerable time, money and energy to prevent it.

Hope I’m right.

3

Rush Limbaugh has a better shot at the Dem nomination than Hillary. If they wanted her she would have gotten it in 08 with Obama as VP.

4

Tina Brown wrote an interesting op-ed piece a month or so ago (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/05/02/don-t-run-for-president-hillary-become-a-post-president-instead.html) suggesting that Hillary Clinton could be far more influential to those specific issues she feels deeply about by forgoing the presidency. With the prospects of a Republican majority in Congress prepared to stymie any major policy moves, a Clinton presidency would likely mirror the bitter partisan deadlock and paralysis we have seen with Obama.

As Brown states, the payoff is in being an ex-president, as the job itself is a meat grinder where the juice seldom justifies the squeeze:

[i]"Being president you may have more power than anyone else in the country, but you quickly discover that you have much, much less than you thought you’d have going in. You’re hamstrung in ways you never dreamed of. That’s truer now than it’s ever been. It’s not that you can’t get anything done. It’s that what you can get done is so paltry compared to what you wanted and expected to get done. You are doomed to disappoint the people who elected you. You’ll disappoint yourself. And that’s only the tip of the iceberg of stress that awaits you.

So knowing all this, why indeed would Hillary run? It’s now clear that given the vile toxicity of the campaign experience and the grueling gridlock of the Oval Office itself, the only reason to run for the highest political office in the land is not the presidency but the post-presidency. The post-presidency, as Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton have proved, is a win-win. Money, Nobels, the ability to leverage your global celebrity for any cause or hobbyhorse you wish, plus freedom to grab the mike whenever the urge takes you without any terminal repercussions. No longer being President does wonders for your morale. Even the Bushes have seemed happier out from under it. Big George went parachute jumping. Little George medicates memories of his Iraq mistake by painting not-bad pictures." [/i]

Given the prospect of spending the next ten years embroiled in bitter partisan politics and watching her life evaporate, why wouldn’t Hillary opt for the payout now? Ms. Brown concludes:

“Now that Chelsea is pregnant, and life for Hillary can get so deeply familial and pleasant, she can have her glory-filled post-presidency now, without actually having to deal with the miseries of the office itself. She is as adored as any ex-president already, she is making a ton of money, and she can expand the real passion of her life, her global mission to promote women’s rights, education, and political participation. The spotlight follows her and always will. If she becomes president at 68 it will be another press onslaught from hell and such a hog-tied two terms, only the festive delights of hip replacement surgery will await her by the time she gets out. Leave the presidency to the people who don’t know what she knows all too well: what it’s really like.”

So we’re left to ponder if Hillary will make what seems the logical choice or will she succumb to ego and the hordes of political hangers-on drooling over the prospect of riding her coattails into the halls of power.

Who am I kidding? She’s gonna run.

5

There’s a reason she is “going into the past” and attacking Bush. She is not going to attack Obama (yet…she will eventually in order to distance herself from his presidency), but she needs to show a clear difference between herself and “the failed policies” of the last republican administation. She is starting to state her case.

I do not disagree that she may not get the nomination, but she is not taking a walk down memory lane for auld lange syn. She has an agenda.

6

I don’t believe for a moment, that Hillary won’t get the nomination. And if it isn’t Hillary, expect Pelosi or some similar nightmare.

7

The Dems are still pushing for that “First Ever” novelty President, and right now they’re thinking a Woman. I hear that Marxist from Massachusetts, Elizabeth Warren, is being pushed behind the scenes. If I remember she was the one who touted her Native American ancestry, but was proven to be a fraud. Democrats have short memories, or they don’t care if their candidate is a liar or lacking in ethical matters.

8

Well of course, the final hardest and highest glass ceiling must be broken don’t ya know.

Honestly though, I think it will be interesting to see how things on that side of the aisle plays out. There’s a lot of time left.

Sent from my XT1060 using Tapatalk

9

Yeah, I love the horseshit about “glass ceilings”, as if we didn’t have a female member of Congress all the way back in 1916.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeannette_Rankin

Among other things, she is famous for being the sole “no” vote for a Declaration of War against Japan following Pearl Harbor.

10

If we want a glass ceiling breaker, why not someone who is mentally disabled? That would really be a spectacle, which is what the uninformed really salivate over. Hilary is a threat in that she may distract the conservatives from their real work of finding a truly GOOD candidate and not just some suave millionaire.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk

11

The ONLY way the Republicans can win by playing “novelty president” would be to nominate an openly gay candidate. Too bad Larry Craig resigned from the senate. He could have had a “coming out” party that would have probably earned him two terms no matter what he did.

12

In addition to the Marxist philosophy, isn’t this what we have now??