Milbank poo-poos O’Malley’s “data driven governance” as uninspiring and more befitting an EPA administrator than a President. I think he’s mistaken. There’s definitely a market for candidates who give a damn about government being inefficient and have ideas on how to make it work better. If the EPA administrators of the country were getting it done it wouldn’t have to be a Presidential issue. But it is, so I’m glad to hear a candidate talk about it.
There was once another candidate who talked about making government work better, and then assigned his VP to the task as soon as he was elected. I wonder what Milbank thinks of that President?
Excellently put. Someone might say that, for example, HRC’s “hawkish” foreign policy instincts might serve as a counterexample, but you can bet that she’ll be painted and perceived by many as 100% liberal in this realm as well (why? because…Benghazi!)
I’m sure there will be attempts from many quarters, but believability matters. I’d note, however, that many people seem to see Clinton as some kind of progressive. Not sure where they get that idea, her record has been centrist down the line, leaning to the right on foreign policy.
My criticisms of Clinton have little to do with her ideology. But because her ideology is center-right, I’ll take her over some Republicans and just about any Democrat.
Then again, when I say “center right”, I’m trying to categorize a politician who avoids taking firm stands on anything if she can avoid it, so maybe I’m just seeing in her whatever I want to see in her, much like many progressives. Never has so little been known about the views of someone in the public eye so long.
The right wing has had a major hard-on (if you’ll excuse the image) to get Valerie Jarret since she was first hired. She’s the female Van Jones to them.
I wouldn’t classify it as any more than a chubby. Karl Rove got much more hate in a similar role. And liberals were just dying to pin the Valerie Plame thing on him.
I hang out at several center-to-lefty blogs and I haven’t heard word one about any of those three even dropping hints. Nor have I heard any clamor for any of them, like I have for Senator Warren and Governor O’Malley.
The Hillary-effect makes the 2016 democratic primaries seem as though she is the incumbent, sitting president. It’s weird. Every possible candidate is a fantasy candidate, because nobody thinks they can beat her.
Ezra Klein states the obvious. Al Gore should run:
If Gore entered the race at this point, he’d probably sweep Clinton aside. Gore has all the name recognition and an even more impressive resume, without the scandal. Plus he’s unbeaten in Presidential elections.
I’m sure he’s getting calls. I wonder if he’s taking those calls? I always figured he stayed out of past races in part because the time wasn’t right. 2004 was just too soon, 2008 featured Clinton and Obama, and 2012 was Obama’s reelection campaign. 2016 will be his last chance.
I think any Dem who gets in the race against Clinton will be in a good position. We’ve had a bunch of posters in this thread (and I add myself to the list) saying “Sure, I’ll vote for Clinton if she’s the nominee. But I’d rather vote for someone else.”
She’s dominating the polls because she’s one of the most recognized political faces in the country. John Q. McVoter couldn’t pick O’Malley out of a lineup today, let alone any of the lower-profile names mentioned above. But put any name on the primary ballot next to Clinton’s and they’ll make a decent showing; put a good candidate against her and it’s a real race, especially if she stumbles. This whole e-mail kerfluffle is a tempest in a teapot but even so, she handled it clumsily. Not only is she not unbeatable; she’s vulnerable if someone would fucking run against her.
She has opposition. Democratic voters just need to act more like Republican voters and give the less well known candidates a fair hearing once the debates start. Martin O’Malley is tons more qualified to be President than Herman Cain or Rick Santorum, yet those guys got their chance to lead the pack based on good debate performances. Republican voters were willing to hear them out. Democratic voters need to be willing to hear O’Malley and any other well qualified candidates out and not be dazzled by Clinton’s celebrity. Webb is also well qualified. Sanders at least checks some ideological boxes if nothing else. And despite Biden’s penchant for gaffes, I’ve never understood why he’s gotten so little support in his last two runs.