Hillary’s big draws
Not long after the 2012 election I predicted that Hillary would run in 2016 and that she had an excellent chance of winning. I would currently place her chances somewhat lower than I did then, but still very good.
Arguments that she would be tired and old by that time seemed—and still seem—overridden by other considerations, first and foremost her gender. As I wrote back then:
It’s women in particular who will vote for Hillary in even greater numbers than they did for Obama, and that’s saying a lot. To liberal and moderate women she is a role model, a hero(ine), an intrepid trailblazer (somewhat ironic, since her path to political prominence came through the traditional female route of linkage to a powerful male), and highly-respected star. Men would have to vote against her in a phalanx to overcome that advantage””and they won’t…
The American electorate appears to be highly motivated to elect “firsts” these days. It’s very likely that the prospect of electing the first black president was responsible for at least some of Obama’s initial attraction, and that same “first” impulse would be operating strongly for Hillary in 2016.
There are other plus factors for Hillary, such as incredibly strong name recognition (always important with the low information voter), and the fact that there isn’t really anyone else on the horizon for the Democrats. But overshadowing even that is identity politics and her gender. The only candidate that would be stronger in that respect would be a black or Hispanic woman, and the only one with equal name recognition is—you guessed it!—Michelle Obama.
For years I’ve heard people say that Michelle would run in 2016. I have consistently thought that was balderdash, and I’ve seen not a sign of movement in that direction so far. But lately I’ve decided it’s not balderdash at all. It really depends on what happens in the next year or so, what the Obamas’ actual (as opposed to their perceived) relationship is (in other words, are they of completely the same mind on more or less everything?), whether Barack Obama could bear to cede even the official trappings of power to his wife, and whether America would swallow the idea of someone completely untested in elected office or generalship running for president (Dr. Ben Carson would test that last proposition on the Republican side). But I have very little doubt that Barack and Michelle Obama would love to stay in power if they could, in order to continue whatever unfinished business may remain of the lofty fundamental transformation of America. And if a Michelle Obama candidacy looked like a viable path to that goal, they would take it.
But let’s get back to Hillary, the nominee I still think is far far more likely. Her path has gotten a bit harder than it looked to me to be in 2012, not the least because of the new trouble that that scamp, her husband, might be in (I write “scamp” because I think much of America looks on him with great affection and considers his shenanigans relatively unimportant). But Hillary herself is still highly admired, and as Bill Kristol points out, a poll of voters elicited a majority response that she “represented the future.” None of the Republican candidates were considered to do so, including those newly burst on the scene.
Speaking of the future—another huge draw Hillary would have for the Democrats is the fact that, during the campaign and during her presidency if elected, her gender would allow her to play the sexism card in the same manner that Obama wielded his very formidable race card. That is worth its weight in gold and then some.
And lest anyone think Republicans could finesse this by nominating a woman for president or for VP, I counter with: look what happened to Sarah Palin. Look, also, at what happened to Condoleezza Rice when she was prominent in the Bush administration, and Rice theoretically held both race and gender cards. But as you probably have observed, the rules of racism and sexism work quite differently for Republicans, who are assumed by definition to have betrayed and sold out both blackness and femaleness through their affiliation with the Evil Party.
And who after Moochelle……Sasha? Malia?
Jesus, please………
…… or after Hitlery, her kid? ……her grandkid?
God please help us, a few lightning bolts please.
I always thought that the Left’s fascination with Hillary as being symbolic of what’s wrong with Feminism. For example let’s take to candidates:
One female candidate came out of no where to become governor of a state where she then brought the state out of debt, passed an energy policy that revitalize the economy, and fought corruption within her own party. (Sarah Palin)
The other married the guy who would get to be president then managed to leverage that into becoming a Senator where she accomplished nothing and then Secretary of State where she accomplished less than nothing. (Hillary Clinton)
Now who’s the heroine for Feminists? Why Hillary.
Feminists talk about women being strong and independent, but they don’t know what those words mean. Just as they talk about compassion, but never show any real compassion. (Say get a person a job, instead of a government handout.)
Because it is easier to talk about those things than to be them. The first is easy. The second is hard.
Neo’s most depressing post ever.
HRC will have a lot of cash. She will have name recognition. She will be the darling of the msm. But will she motivate hispanics, blacks, and yutes to turn out to vote in the same magnitude as the messiah? I am doubtful she has the charisma to generate much enthusiasm, potential first female potus aside, she looks like yesterday’s papers to me.
Yes, I realize we are up to our knees in livs, but livs are lazy and she is no messiah figure. And, there is only so much lipstick the msm can put on the ‘pig’ before it looks like a pig with too much lipstick. The gop is certainly capable of putting up a tired establishment candidate that has an excellent chance of losing to anyone the dems field; but isn’t 2016 also an excellent opportunity to field a candidate who can make a sharp contrast between the failed ideology of the left and the ideology of the right?
“The American electorate appears to be highly motivated to elect “firsts” these days.”
Yes, it is absolution and inoculation they seek. Absolution for the sins of their ancestors, indeed for the entire white race’s historical ‘sins’ and, inoculation from accusations of racism. The activist leftist/liberals are also desperate for absolution, for their ‘white privilege.
“It’s very likely that the prospect of electing the first black president was responsible for at least some of Obama’s initial attraction”
It’s much more than likely, it is of a certainty.
“that same “first” impulse
wouldwill be operating strongly for Hillary in 2016″.“there isn’t really anyone else on the horizon for the Democrats”
Sen. Elizabeth Warren? “A group of more than 300 hundred former Obama staffers have written an open letter urging Elizabeth Warren to run for president of the United States.” I think it highly unlikely that those staffers did not get prior, indirect approval from Obama. Reportedly, there is much buried hostility between the Obamas and Clintons.
Matthew,
Rabid heterosexual Feminists do NOT want equality with men, they want to be in charge (ah the irony) and, in their heart of hearts, they have zero respect for the metrosexual boys that welcome being told what to do, say and think. Which is why they are so frustrated.
parker,
“will she motivate hispanics, blacks, and yutes to turn out to vote in the same magnitude as the messiah”
Probably not but they do want to keep the entitlement state going, so strictly out of self-interest, enough will turn out. Plus, there’s the increasingly popular dem tactic of voter fraud in key districts in swing states, now with illegal immigrant ‘votes’.
“isn’t 2016 also an excellent opportunity to field a candidate who can make a sharp contrast between the failed ideology of the left and the ideology of the right?”
Of course it is but what indication is there that the GOP has any intention of fielding a candidate that will excite their base? They’re pushing Jeb Bush as hard as they can, who not only supports amnesty, which disenfranchises Americans from self-rule and jobs but he also supports common core, which is a loosely disguised effort at formalizing leftist indoctrination in the schools.
Add to all of this the propaganda from the MSM and the contest may already be over. I rest my case.
Geoffrey Britain:
I will go on record as saying I don’t think Bush will be the nominee.
Could be wrong, of course. But I’ve said it right along, and I see no indication whatsoever that he will win. People are not that interested in him no matter how much money he gets. We’ll see, I suppose.
neo,
I agree that Bush is not likely to be the nominee. My point however is that the GOP leadership and big donor’s strong support for Bush is an implicit declaration that they are not interested in fielding “a candidate who can make a sharp contrast between the failed ideology of the left and the ideology of the right”.
Given that reality, I fear that the GOP will not ‘really’ support any candidate who does not privately indicate that they will ‘cooperate as needed by the GOP leadership. The price of GOP support is I suspect, their soul.
I agree with this piece at Commentary that it’s looking likely that 2016, because of ISIS, will be a foreign policy election, and in that case, the Republicans are going to have to run someone who’s strong in that area:
Also, although Hillary’s foreign policy experience has been disastrous, the Republicans can’t rest on that alone. The MSM will be running very good interference for her on that score.
George W. Bush had VERY impressive Press Sec’ys EXCEPT Scott MacClellen who was a true doofus and the president held on to him way too long. Ari was great…Tony Snow was terrific(RIP) and Dana Perino was perfect for stepping into Tony’s shoes.
The gop establishment loathed and feared RR, yet he won the nomination and in the general sent jimmy into houses for humanity and overseeing corrupt 3rd world elections. IMO Walker is the heir apparent. Get active locally. Walker/Martinez is my ticket to victory.
I have commented (extensively) in the past as to why I think Hillary is all but inevitable as the Democratic nominee and the buzz around Elizabeth Warren is a red herring. I shall not repeat my arguments here, but add one more point: Warren remaining coy about her intentions benefits everyone: Warren herself, Hillary, and Republicans.
How is this seeming incoherence possible? Let’s unpack it.
I see the run up to 2016 (on the Democratic side, anyway) much akin to the run-up to 2000. Granted, Obama is not as popular as Clinton was nor is the economy nearly in as strong of shape. However, there is a clear, overwhelming frontrunner (Gore then, Hillary now) who is not the most exciting candidate, but the obvious choice, the person for whom the nomination is theirs to lose. The left is not entirely happy about this. This candidate has never bowled over the activist, progressive left. They dream of their hero jumping into the fray (Wellstone then, Warren now). And the hero has hinted s/he just might. Maybe. Possibly. But s/he has been ambiguous to a fault about this prospect.
Ultimately, I expect Warren to continue her cat-and-mouse all the way until Hillary triumphs in Iowa and New Hampshire. She still won’t endorse Hillary until the latter has secured a majority of delegates for the nomination. It serves Warren well, because: (A) It keeps plenty of national attention on her, allowing her to claim her status as the undisputed face progressivism in America, post-Obama. (B) It allows her to use her status to continue to push the Democratic party left. (C) It sets her up as the primary contender to either be Hillary’s VP or the frontrunner for 2020 should Hillary lose (or both).
Warren’s indecisive act also benefits Hillary, however. Many, many progressives would love for someone on the left to seriously challenge Hillary. Warren is their first choice, but they would gladly support a Bernie Sanders or equivalent as well. However, as long as Warren remains uncommitted, any other lefty prospect (such as Sanders) is stymied. They cannot initiate any serious candidacy as progressive donors/political operatives are waiting on Warren. If Warren issued a “Shermanesque” statement, Sanders (or whomever) would be free to jump in (and I think many progressives would flock to him). But as long as she is uncommitted, such possibilities are squelched.
Lastly (and most importantly) the present state benefits the GOP. Quite frankly, Hillary is simply not that great of a candidate. She’s wooden, dismissive, awkward and aloof. These deficits were what led to her downfall by Obama in 2008. She got a burst of energy and became a much better campaigner once she was threatened. And if she had secured the nomination, she would have been a much stronger candidate in the general election, due to the serious challenge she faced from Obama.
The same still holds. Therefore, I hope Warren maintains her indecisive playfulness for the duration. I want Hillary to remain confident, aloof and clueless all the way to the Democratic convention and beyond. I want her to make gaffe after gaffe on or after Labor Day, 2016. She will scramble to reinvent her image, the MSM will go to great lengths to protect her, but nonetheless, Democrats will realize they’re stuck and rue their reality.
I don’t think Hillary has a lock on this, at all. She has health problems, she often comes across as unpleasant in person, and many young voters have never heard of her various scandals. She and Bill negate the whole “War on Women” argument: how is voting for an enabling spouse of a sexual predator a “feminist” action? And now he’s caught up in the whole Epstein sex-slave scandal. Plus, the Bill Cosby revelations hurt the Clintons, indirectly.
Finally, the last affirmative action hire didn’t work out so well, and much of the country is sick of Democrats.
Neo left out how Hillary’s numbers will skyrocket when she divorces that scamp Bill over the orgy island stuff.
The MSM will be completely fixated on that and avoid the issues. The perfect diversion.
Bill is a net negative and she will get rid of him soon. It’s not like the love each other and live together or anything. As a bone, she could appoint him Secretary of State.
Cornhead:
I disagree. People love Bill. He’s the thing that softens and humanizes Hillary. The only way she would divorce him while still seeking political office is if the charges against him exploded into something extremely bad, and the evidence he was guilty was overwhelming. Just being on that island wouldn’t be enough.
Neo:
It will come out and will be extremely bad. And the reason it will come out is because there is a lawsuit and a former federal judge is one of the plaintiff’s lawyers. He is no dummy and way too much money to be made.
Cornhead:
I think I’m just de-scandalized. So many things have come out that are shocking about so many Democrats, and those Democrats have not suffered politically because of it, that I am hard-pressed to think of something that would put a dent in their political fortunes. That’s where I’m coming from.
For example, I would have thought that tape with Hillary laughing about getting the rapist off by attacking the victim’s history would have finished Hillary politically, especially with women. And yet it appears to have scarcely made a ripple.
I think it ought to feature prominently in the ads of whoever runs against her. But I wonder if they’ll do that.
Neo-neocon: the media could largely ignore the laughing about the rapist thing because Hillary isn’t running yet, but I think that’s just the sort of thing that will appear in political ads, when it matters.