I’m baffled by the belief that Hillary Clinton is a good presidential candidate. Watching her lately, I’m just not seeing it. Her book tour was lackluster, she apparently couldn’t fill the venues she was booked into, and she looked old and tired. She’s made some unforced errors lately, such as her incredibly stupid comment, “Don’t let anybody, don’t let anybody tell you that, ah, you know, it’s corporations and businesses that create jobs.” A politician of her experience should have known that this was going to blow back in her face, and it will. That sound bite is going to be everywhere if she runs in 2016. And there was no reason at all for her to say it to that audience.
Her last appearance on the Daily Show was filled with over-the-top laughing and mugging that almost reached Howard Dean “YEAAARRGHH!” levels.
She’s also old - she’d be in Reagan territory for age if elected, and there are plenty of signs that her health is not where it used to be. This is a problem for the Democrats in general - the party is starting to look pretty damned old, while the Republicans are getting younger. It’ll be an issue in the next election - getting the youth to come out and vote will be hard enough - made harder when your standard bearer will be a septuagenarian in her first year in office, while the Republican is likely to be someone closer to Obama’s age.
Furthermore, her strategy is going to be to distance herself from the Obama administration, and that’s bound to anger a lot of the base. And if she placates them by making hard-left promises, she’ll lose the center.
Her time as Secretary of State didn’t help her either, given that she presided over one of the biggest deteriorations of world order we’ve seen since the cold war.
I think that if Hillary runs, she loses. The Democrats need to elect someone from outside of Washington. A popular Democratic governor with a reasonably centrist track record. You need to nominate an Evan Bayh, not another lifetime Washington insider.
I do find it amusing that many of the same people who said that the Democrats couldn’t win nominating a black man are now saying that they can’t win without one.
Seriously, barring a 9-11 scale event, it’s most likely that folks will have to get used to saying “Madam President”.
In the internet age, they know enough to figure out whether a candidate is actually moderate. And in the judgment of voters, voting with the President and Harry Reid over 90% of the time was not evidence of moderation and certainly not evidence of independence.
I can’t get over the feeling that the Dems will pick her (if she runs) for the same reasons the GOP picked Dole - it’s her turn, plus the idea “we got a minority in the Oval Office last time, now we need a woman”. Since she is no longer a SoS, she can sort of benefit if and when things go to hell overseas by implying that they wouldn’t have if she were in charge. And rely on the fanatics to scream “ISNOTISNOTISNOTISNOTSHUTUPSHUTUPSHUTUPRACISTHOMOPHOBE!!!” in unison everytime Benghazi or Belgian hookers are mentioned.
I hope she runs (and loses) but I suspect she can’t alienate the Dem base - gays, feminists, and union members will fall in line behind her just as they always do. Blacks will vote for her (or whoever the Democratic nominee is) as obediently as they always do, albeit without the snake-handler level of enthusiasm they had for Obama. As ever, she has to try for the middle, and a lot depends on the economy. If Biden runs, it may be a matter of who blunders and/or runs out of gas physically first, and the press won’t be able to cover up the gaffes on both sides as they will attempt to do compared to the GOP nominee, no matter who that turns out to be.
She may not run. She has learned that she cannot proceed to the White House as a matter of birthright, as she used to do. If she does run, she is very far from a lock on the nomination. That was supposed to happen in 2008, and she is a lot more dinged and tarnished than she was then.
The SDMB will never admit it, of course, so all discussions implying that she might be flawed will instantly revert to dengrations of Republicans, but that is SOP.
Here’s what you wrote in 2007: “If you think Hillary is unelectable, then all I can say is that the Democrats are in the process of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, because I think a serious Republican candidate will chew up Edwards or Obama.”
I realize you think that was a good call then and that everything has changed in the intervening years, but the far simpler explanation is that your “advice” to Democrats in 2008, 2012, and now in 2016 is for them to align themselves with Sam Stone’s preferences as much as they plausibly can and still be Democrats. Because virtually all of your advice in the last two elections has been wrong while also just so happening to coincide with your policy preferences.
He didn’t say she did anything or didn’t do anything, only that she presided over a deterioration of the world order. Which is true. The administration has been feckless in the face of these problems, if anything, wanting to abdicate American leadership and let the world go to hell.
Don’t you get it, BobLibDem? She didn’t have to do or say anything, and anything she DID do or say would have been WRONG! She was governing while Democrat!
Since liberals keep talking about being loud and proud, why won’t they own the humble, America takes a back seat foreign policy they’ve been advocating?
Perhaps a more pertinent way to address this is to ask what Hillary has actually done as SoS?
I mean, going on lots of trips around the world is cool and all but when we really needed to stand up for American principles in the Middle East, we let the disquieted calls for democracy go squashed.
Not to mention that Putin has his finger pressed on the President’s forehead, the White House had no plan to deal with ISIS for 6 months, and the goofball who made the video of Muhammad is the only person in jail via the Benghazi affair.
The idea that those things wouldn’t have happened if a Republican was in office makes about as much sense as the theory that Reagan won the Cold War with a few stern speeches.
But ultimately, I would love to hear the conservative explanation for why when the economy improves, Obama and his minions had nothing to do with it; but if something unpleasant happens in the world, he is at fault. It is as if some posters here think Obama (and Clinton, I suppose) are simultaneously totally omnipotent and totally incompetent, and he could make everything better if he only had the slightest clue how to do his job.
Concerning Hillary, I think her entire campaign will be based on I am woman, it’s my turn.
She is shrill, never was the politician Bill was, did damn little as SoS, and is off her game now, and I don’t see the US falling for it a 2nd time to put someone in office just because it is their turn.
I not see her a shoo in at all, blue wall or no blue wall.
Now that’s funny. Putin got played by a smarter adversary. He should consult with the republicans. Not only do they share the same values, they’ve been getting played in the same way for six years.
So what? There was a coup in Egypt in 1954 but nobody claimed the world had gone to hell under Eisenhower. Nor was anyone claiming the world went to hell under Reagan when the Iraqis used WMDs during their war with Iran. And modern Islamic fundamentalism goes back to at least the founding of the Muslim Brotherhood in 1928.
Bad shit happens in the world. The bad shit that happened between 2009 and 2013 was no worse than usual.
THat’s easy. The President doesn’t control the economy, or domestic conditions in general, except in an extremely limited way, through the regulatory process. The President’s power to conduct foreign policy, however, is very powerful.
No one is saying that the world would be peaceful and in a golden age with another President. Only that the American response to these changes has been feckless, making things worse than they otherwise would be. World powers or even small rogue states looking to commit mischief do not have to worry about America’s response under this administration. Doesn’t even have to enter into their calculations.
This is a direct result of decades of what Democrats have advocated in foreign policy: multilateralism instead of unilateralism, embracing American relative decline instead of maintaining American leadership.
Nobody worries about American intervention? Tell that to Qaddafi, ISIS, AQAP, and Al Shabaab. The fact that he hasn’t followed literally insane advice to do stupid things like bomb Iran is to be cheered, not belittled.
If you want to start another thread about Obama’s foreign policy, please do. But without question, this presidency has had the most successful foreign policy in many decades. Far better than Reagan’s, for example.
Fine. What should America have done in response to, say, the coup in Egypt? Invade the country, install our own puppet despot?
Frankly, if President Obama had committed troops or ordered airstrikes (and he did, in the case of ISIS) Republicans could (and did, in some cases) call him a “warmonger.”
“multilateralism instead of unilateralism” - The 1950s called, it wants its mindless jingoism back.