Keep in mind that this post is coming from somebody who is about as left wing as humanly possible. Yes, I’d vote for HRC as POTUS before any 'Pub, but the thing is, I wouldn’t cast that vote with a sense of overwhelming enthusiasm. As far as I can tell, HRC is a corporate elitist who is to the right of Obama on virtually every meaningful issue. I don’t have any institutional problems with her vast sums of wealth per se, but the recent public equivocations about her fortune certainly don’t help to shed the image that she is emblematic of the type of income inequality that infuriates the Democratic base.
I’d much rather see a Schweitzer or Liz Warren presidency, however unlikely that possibility turns out to be.
So with all this in mind, what do you think is driving the groundswell of support for Hillary Clinton as a '16 nominee? For my two cents, I think it largely boils down to a couple of things: 1) Americans broadly look back on the last Clinton presidency with fondness, and they think that another Clinton administration would be similarly as prosperous, and 2) voters are increasingly ready for a female POTUS, and they think that Hillary is the most qualified woman to assume that mantle.
After Obama, I think a lot of liberals want someone who will be harsher and fight with the GOP more, if only for some catharsis. I do like the job Obama’s done and think he made the best of a bad situation, but sometimes I wish he’d call them out on their shit more. Plus, I enjoy the idea that the GOP has hated Hillary for so long and I want to stick it to them. I have absolutely no doubt that the GOP will hate anyone we elect and they will oppose anything the Dem president does, so I might as well support someone they hate than someone they have to manufacture hate for
We want another winner, we want the first female President to be Democratic, and we think HRC is a largely competent, mainstream Democrat who would likely win the election.
I still hope for a lively (but not too negative) primary.
I don’t know that Democrats are obsessed with her. The press is obsessed with her because of her name recognition, long history, potential to break that presidential barrier, and of course the fact that the political press always need something to gab and speculate about.
For the most part it’s media generated. And in my opinion for two reasons: 1. The media knows Clinton is a polarizing figure and that photos of her and articles about her will generate lots of views and click-throughs; 2. The media likes the idea of a female president (provided she’s a Democrat, that is) and they’re aware of the liberal proclivity to elect/appoint people because they belong to a politically correct group rather than due to their character and/or ability to do the job. This why we wound up with Jimmy Carter (not Nixon), Barack Obama (McCain would’ve been another GWB, plus Obama was quasi-black!), and have had appointees like Madeline Albright, Joycelyn Elders and Janet Reno inflicted upon us.
There are already signs to indicate that her womanness is to be Clinton’s/the media’s overriding campaign theme. Witness this blurb from Clinton on the cover of a recent People magazine cover: “We need to break that highest, hardest glass ceiling”.
A contributing factor to Democratic *confidence *in her candidacy is that she’s Republican-proof. There’s nothing they can come up with to defame her that they haven’t already tried, and anything else they invent will probably only rebound on them, like the Vince Foster murder fantasy. You see it with the Benghazi non-story, too. Despite it all, she still has fav/unfavs of around 60-40, which is about as good as it gets for a longtime pol.
Agreed, I think it’s a case of the popular media creating an impression and, simultaneously, helping to make it true by sheer force of hype. Still, I’d say her prominence in the party right now is quite real and is due to one main factor: she’s the obvious heir to the Presidency, and she can win. She may not, given the back-and-forth pendulum that seems to govern the occupancy of the White House, but she is one tough and determined lady. If the GOP runs some doofus like Romney again, the carnage will be fun to watch. And one can’t underestimate the influence on the women’s vote. McCain tried to appeal to it by taking on a complete imbecile as his running mate and it backfired, but this is very real.
BTW, I’m just slowly slogging my way through “Hard Choices” right now, mostly out of idle curiosity. Her experiences are impressive, though I must admit there’s an off-putting sense of self-promotion about the book. Not that I blame her – one has to do what one must.
I think this is a big part of it. Liberals aren’t terribly fond of her right-centrist politics, but they have the popcorn ready for the inevitable Republican attempts to recycle decades-old crap.
Liberals may have been putting her right-centrist politics out of mind since she hasn’t held/ran for elective office in about six years, but they won’t be able to do that much longer.
Not clear how much of that is genuine and how much reflects triangulation in the 1990’s DC partisan environment. Remember her push for Hillarycare - that wasn’t right-centrist, but was in fact all that was (and still is) progressively achievable then.
Some things have changed, including the fact that national health care is now established fact and the boundaries that can be pushed are farther out now. Another is that Republican economic policies are thoroughly discredited via experience with a majority of the populace, giving the next President a freer hand to push populism.
I’ll tell you one thing, Clinton needs to grow a pair or she’s going to get her ass handed to her in the Presidential debates.
She waffled when asked about her wealth (She pulled a fucking Romney for Christ’s sake! Trying to play yourself off as being broke after the WH was a very bad move. It doesn’t exactly endear yourself to the millions of Americans that actually are living hand to mouth.
She also waffled on her evolving stance on marriage equality. Instead of giving that BS nonsequitur like she gave in that one interview, she should have just said: “You know what? I was against it in the 90’s but I have since changed my opinion. I’m for it now.”
Her problem is that she is profoundly and reflexively dishonest. She can’t help herself. This was a case of her lying reflexively in response to questions about her wealth without stopping to think it through first.
And of course then all her opponent would have to do is point out the truth, which was that she was against it when it was politically expedient to do so and she’s for it now that it’s politically expedient for her to do so.
Her Republican opponent is likely to have been against it when it was politically expedient, and still against it now that it’s not… which is worse. Coming to the right opinion because of political expediency is far, far better than never coming to the right opinion at all.
Exactly. And call me a hopeless optimistic if you wish but I truly believe her opinion has changed over the years. I know mine has. I’m not proud of my previous views but at least I changed.
