Hillary Clinton’s lack of likeability has always been a big problem, and she’ll never be charismatic because she’d rather be packaged and play it safe all the time.
Now people respect Hillary, but that’s not the same thing. Although it’s probably a bigger asset, especially given that in 2016 we’ll have had 16 years of incompetent leadership to recover from.
Ryan is quite likeable, BTW, as are Jindal and Rubio.
By not giving Tea Party groups a decision, these groups couldn’t raise money effectively.
When you send a relatively small group forms asking them to list all their donors(an illegal request that the counsel’s office had to know was illegal), or ask them 200 different questions that they can’t possibly answer satisfactorily, it’s designed to have a chilling effect.
All that happened to progressive groups was that they got scrutinized a little more. By the Cincinnati office. DC didn’t trust the Cincinnati office to handle Tea Party applications.
The first two paragraphs are half true (and reek of hackery like Mark Halperin), and the last is totally false 
To quote a great man, Hillary is likeable enough. Seriously, you don’t think Obama has charisma? And Ryan and Rubio are likeable? I think there’s a wee bit of wishful thinking on your part.
I believe his point was that Obama has charisma but not competence. Of course, his argument for the latter is Obama’s inability to overcome the GOP’s total and irrational opposition to him accomplishing anything, even if it requires them to filibuster their own bills and block their own nominees for posts, much in the same way that Obama’s inability to fly is a sign of his incompetence in overcoming gravity.
They have a certain superficial charisma, up to the point they actually attempt to say something of substance. Then it all starts to go wrong.
I remain skeptical that Clinton will run at all but I do think that Clinton 2016 is not Clinton 2008, and that her stint as SoS has worn down (if not entirely removed) the giant chip she used to have on her shoulder. She’s more attractive as a candidate now than she was six years ago.
Could we maybe limit this thread to Chris Christie’s 2016 or 2020 chances, and discuss other candidates in other thread(s)?
The Onion now has an op-ed piece by Gov. Christie: My Fellow Americans, Look At Me: Do I Look Like A Corrupt, Vengeful Bully?
Well, I still think this has hurt Christie enough to ensure he’ll go no higher than the governor’s mansion, at least for the 2016 cycle. There’s a lot of very real damage done.
2020 is a lifetime away in political terms so all things are possible, but it’ll still be an uphill struggle.
He was born in 1962, so he does have some time to wait till 2020 if he has to pass on 2016. Running at 58 would not be out of the question in 2020 or even at 62 in 2024. As far as this cycle goes, it’s hard to see how he does it. Lose some weight, keep the nose clean, and wait for the end of Hillary’s second term for a 2024 run.
Oh, well played, Fox News, well played:
While New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie is getting hammered over a close aide’s involvement in snarling traffic as an apparent act of political retribution, he’s nevertheless set himself apart from the Obama administration in his response to scandal.
The punishment in Trenton was swift. The governor said at a press conference Thursday that, within minutes of seeing incriminating emails, he fired his deputy chief of staff. He also sidelined his former campaign manager, nixing a lucrative contract and shutting him out of a plum job at the helm of the state GOP. Two Port Authority officials previously had resigned.
By contrast, the Obama administration’s meandering response to three major controversies – the Benghazi attack, the IRS targeting scandal, and the botched ObamaCare rollout – often has seemed less decisive.
How many people died because of the IRS scandal, again?
Well, if you want dead people, wait for people who lost their insurance due to ACA to get sick.
Ignorance that keeps on giving!
Benghazi controversy was invented by the GOP. IRS targeting was a general effort against non-legitimate political non-profits of any alignment and the “scandal” was, again, invented by right-wing liars. The “botched rollout” had nothing to do with political opportunism (except for any GOP sabotage) and the level of “botch” now seems grossly exaggerated.
“Bridgegate”, OTOH, was politics at its most contemptible.
I’d be interested to discuss incidents that can realistically be compared to Bridgegate in despicableness and examine whether the perpetrator (or perpetrator’s leader) was able to recover politically.
We’re not comparing the severity of the scandal, but the way it was handled.
Christie, assuming he’s not hiding anything, put everything out there and punished people.
Most politicians allow a drip, drip, drip of new revelations, because they won’t tell what they know. It’s not the crime, it’s the coverup. And the not punishing anyone. It’s hard to argue that it’s not your fault when you let the people who did wrong get away with it.
It also doesn’t look good when you appoint your political allies to investigate your administration.
That your interest is in political handling, not the distinction between blunders (or misunderstandings) and truly despicable acts like Bridgegate, confirms the impression you’ve given in other posts.
So Christie is a suave sleaze artist who can orchestrate (or unknowingly mentor) something like Bridgegate and still come off smelling good? And that makes him admirable, or a good candidate for high office?
Interesting perspective.
Whether or not to fire people who do wrong isn’t political handling. It’s called accountability. A concept Democrats seem to be confused about due to the Obama adminsitration’s unwillingness to be held accountable for anything whatsoever.
I saw someone on Fox News say this minutes after Christie’s press conference ended. I laughed. I had to. Such a transparently pathetic attempt at spin.
I obviously missed the deep meaning. Fox viewers really and truly cannot think for themselves. They possess no critical evaluation skills. They don’t laugh at spin. They look to conservative voices for their thoughts, which they then parrot endlessly. Facts don’t stop them, mockery bounces off. That these arguments never persuade anyone outside the bubble is shrugged off; worse, it’s borne as a badge of pride. No independent thought since 1996!
We’re almost privileged in a way. We’re living through the era that future historians will consider the major trend of the times next to the Internet itself. A large swath of Americans willingly delegated their thinking to a small group of hysterical fear- and hatemongers and prided themselves for doing so. Utterly incredible. Yet we have proof of it in writing.
So the proof that the IRS scandal is legit is that Obama fired people. And the reason Christy is better than Obama is because he fired people and Obama never has. Well played, indeed. :rolleyes:
Once more, it’s “Christie.”
This makes no sense. It is about the severity of the scandal. How can it not be? It’s crazy to excuse grievous offenses because someone handles the fallout from getting caught well. Deal with the crime then compare the cover up but if the levels of the scandal are far enough apart, then how they handle the fallout isn’t going to change things.
Unless one is desperately grasping for an equivalence that could rescue one’s Moderate Republican Savior.