Hillary Clinton To Enter Presidential Race This Weekend
To the surprise of few, Hillary Clinton is running for President
In what probably ranks as the least surprising political news in decades, Hillary Clinton is expected to announce her Presidential campaign this weekend, but it will be a far more low-key announcement than we’ve seen from other candidates:
Hillary Clinton will reportedly announce her 2016 White House run as soon as this Sunday.
She is expected to launch her campaign on social media, according to reports, before stopping over in the early-voting states of Iowa and New Hampshire
Clinton would be the first Democrat to declare for the 2016 presidential election, following the entrance of Republican contenders Rand Paul on Tuesday and Ted Cruz on March 23. Former Virginia Sen. Jim Webb and former Rhode Island Gov. Lincoln Chafee have launched exploratory committees for the Democratic nomination as well.
As previously reported by POLITICO last Friday, Clinton’s campaign headquarters will be in Brooklyn Heights, New York. A lease was signed for the building, where the operation will take up two floors.
The New York Daily News first reported Clinton’s potential announcement Thursday night.
Unlike Republicans Ted Cruz and Rand Paul, who are already in the race, and Marco Rubio, who is expected to announce on Monday, Clinton’s decision to not launch her campaign via a high impact rally in front of an adoring crowd has garnered some notice from pundits this morning, but the choice is one that reflects both her status in the race as well as what clearly seem to be her own preferences as a candidate. Unlike these other candidates, Clinton does not necessarily need the press attention that would come with that kind of a campaign launch given the fact that she’s been a fixture in American politics for some two decades now. Furthermore, to an even greater extent than in 2008, Clinton’s standing in the polling for the Democratic nomination is so strong that many have observed it almost feels as though she’s an incumbent running for re-election rather than just another candidate running for an open Presidential seat. Given these facts, and given that there are currently no other Democrats in the race, and no prospective Democrats that seem to be capable of posing a serious challenge to her over the coming year, a “soft” launch followed by on the ground campaigning in early primary states isn’t necessarily a bad idea. It’s also worth noting that Clinton launched her 2007 campaign in much the same manner, via a video posted on what became her campaign’s website in January 2007. Many observers have suggested that this seems to reflect her own preference for smaller interactions with voters rather than the traditional big campaign rallies.
In any case, as I said, Clinton entering the race is probably the worst kept secret in American politics in quite some time. It’s been something that she’s clearly been building toward ever since leaving the State Department in January 2013, and is likely something that was figuring into her political plans long before that. As things stand right now, Clinton is the prohibitive favorite for the Democratic nomination, with current polling showing her with an average of 59.8% of the vote, and a 40 point lead over her closest polling rival, who happens to be a Senator from Massachusetts who won’t be running for President to begin with. Absent a series of political mistakes on her part even worse than anything we saw in 2008, when she ran a campaign that did have some errors but nonetheless came very close to winning the Democratic nominations, or some other unforeseeable occurrence, it is incredibly unlikely that anyone other than Hillary Clinton will be the Democratic nominee for President in 2016. On the general election side, Clinton continues to maintain a lead over the respective Republican candidates, although that lead has tightened somewhat in many states over the past couple months. However, it is still far too early to say that those General Election polls have any actual predictive value. If 2016 is like the four Presidential elections that preceded it, though, and there’s no reason to believe that it won’t, then it’s safe to say that it will likely end up being a closely fought election in which the Democrats will continue to maintain an advantage in the Electoral College. It’s still possible for a Republican to win in 2016, of course, but if it happens it’s likely to be by a very narrow margin. Because of that, at least at the moment, Clinton’s path to the White House must be looking pretty good to her at the moment
Oh my God, Hillary’s running for president?
As I approach curmudgeonly old age, I think nothing about the mainstream media annoys me more than the announcement of impending announcement. It’s the ultimate non-news. Nothing has actually happened yet — or, if the non-announcement was really the announcement, then it has happened in the least informative fashion possible. Just bleeping wait until the actual announcement, then tell us about it.
She’s just trying to distance herself from Elizabeth Warren’s campaign.
@DrDaveT:
I’d like to announce that later today I’ll have another comment.
What’s the over/under for how much money she raises in the first day? First week?
Sure there is…The Republican Party has been getting progressively more insane. ..to the point now that it is a parody of itself. The absolute best possible hope for the GOP is a guy named Bush? And he has hired all his brothers foreign policy advisers, including Paul Wolfowitz, and he wants a war with Iran? Great. Good luck with that.
While Ms. Clinton likely has my vote (fer crissake look at the alternatives!), I find myself less than enthusiastic about her. I am hoping that will turn around when she presents her compelling case for what she actually wants to do with a presidency.
@michael reynolds:
I will work on a potential response to that comment.
Well, finally we’ll be forced to confront and discuss an issue (in fact the most important issue facing America today) that the Main Stream Media has ignored for over 2 years – Benghazi.
@al-Ameda: Nicely played, sir.
Totally OT, but …um?
The thing that sticks in my craw is the description “gold engineered to be twice as hard as normal gold.” Gold’s pretty soft. So we go from one marshmallow to….two marshmallows?
Either Apple’s got a screw loose or the reporter’s been sloppy..
@grumpy realist: I suppose they could mean whatever they alloyed the gold with makes it somehow “harder” than regular 18-karat? You’re right, it’s kind of nonspecific and confusing.
This is going to be an interesting campaign, given how much of a “known quantity” Mrs. Clinton is. (And Mr. Clinton, for that matter.)
I think she will have to take a kind of “flip side” to normal campaigning: she’ll have to concentrate not so much on generating excitement as she will on combating boredom. She’ll have to present her ideas and positions in a way that potential voters don’t respond with “Meh…heard it already.”
At first blush, her apparently low-key announcement doesn’t seem to accomplish that, but I think she’s starting out the right way. She doesn’t need a grandiose glitz-and-glam announcement, but she needs to signal her considerable base of supporters “it’s time to mobilize.” Using her social media connections is a good way to do that.
Still, it will probably be a lot more interesting seeing who decides to oppose her in the primaries…or if anyone even does.
@Mikey: Gold’s hardness is 2.5 on the Mohs scale. So “twice as hard” brings it up to….tooth enamel?
(Hardened steel is 7 on the Mohs scale, for comparison)
@Mikey:
I think this is right. Most candidates need to peak at convention time, in order to win the nomination. That’s a problem, because (a) it’s hard to keep that level of active support going all the way through the election, and (b) it means having to win over a different set of voters, possibly at the expense of alienating some of the base that got you nominated.
In Mrs. Clinton’s case, there’s no sign that she needs to worry about winning the nomination, so she can plan a trajectory that aims all along at the national vote and a peak at election time.
@Hal_10000:
Dude, first you need to form a committee.
@Tony W: Her case for being president is another Clinton as president.
I am surprised that she waited this long to enter. Her official announcement should really get the craziness started with the Republican base and the candidates pandering to it. She may not be guaranteed to get the nomination, but assuming she does the 14 months of looniness between now and the general election won’t hurt her!
@grumpy realist: There’s this: 18 carat yellow gold alloys with increased hardness
Depending on what metals the pure gold is alloyed with to get to 18-karat, and the method used, it is possible to create 18-karat gold of increased hardness. Pretty interesting.
I haven’t seen anybody really talk about the most interesting part of this whole thing: her running mate
Hillary is obviously the hands on favorite to win both the Dem nomination and then the general election. Her running mate, therefore, will get to be VP, and thus be in a great position to run with the semi-incumbant advantage in the next open presidential contest. It’s also a great chance to give a bunch of visibility and prestige to an otherwise relatively unknown candidate; the Dem bench hasn’t seen a lot of motion since so many are staying out of the way of the Hillary juggernaut.
Ideally, the dems pick a good young, high potential up and comer. So who’s a good suggestion?
Two serious question for all….
1. Has there every been a candidate for president that has this high a name recognition factor, and this long a public record to run for president?
Richard Nixon maybe, but he dissappeared for a few years into private practice.
Hillary Clinton has been on the national stage – almost non-stop since 1990. On Election Day 2016, that will be 26 years. A huge part of the electorate, say those under 35, doesn’t know a world without HIllary Clinton being in the news or part of the landscape.
2. How do you run against such a candidate that well known?
She has almost 100% name recognition. All her “scandals” are out there. What can they did up? Whtewater? Lewinski? Benghazi? Emails? Carpetbagging? Too close to Wall Street? I’m trying to see how the GOP wins any States Obama won either time. I can’t see it.
@cd6: she needs somebody oozing charisma, like Bara–wait a minute…got my dates mixed up.
@EddieInCA:
I see the same thing. I see a woman fully-exposed, 100% name recognition, who has hard support from 50% give or take, and a base in women voters, gay voters, black voters and Latino voters.
Right now she’s running against a question mark. Will it be Jeb Bush? Scott Walker? Or one of the real crazies?
If the GOP base manages to push Bush at all to the right, and particularly if social issues are brought to the fore, that strengthens Hillary.
Hillary has no opposition within her own party, she can chart her own course, she’s got experience on the campaign trail from six years ago. She’ll have plenty of money. And she’ll have what Mr. Obama never had and still doesn’t: some powerful and effective surrogates including her husband and very likely Obama, too to reach out to black voters, Bill Richardson to help with Latinos. And there’s still the Veep spot she can use to shore up weak areas.
Her biggest problem is the sense of deja vu, but against that she has half the population thinking, “About time one of us was elected.”
She’s not safe, she’s not home free, but assuming her health doesn’t become an issue, she’s going to be damned hard to beat. And she could well bring the Senate along on her coattails, because this is a Democratic map shaping up here.
@cd6: On paper Jim Webb would be a great ticket balancer. Male, southern, decorated veteran, ass’t Sec of Def under Reagan. Older than one would wish to groom as the next generation (born in ’46, as I was) and apparently not a great campaigner. Hillary probably doesn’t need the help in VA and FL, but he might be good insurance.
@al-Ameda: Yes, and maybe an independent committee can be formed to investigate this and shed some light on it. But there is the problem of the missing emails being deleted, so there goes some evidence.
Maybe finally the people can get some answers .
@gVOR08:
so in other words as close to a Republican without actually being labeled a Republican.
Nahhh, I’ll pass on that.
@Loviatar: Still, putting Webb on the ticket as VP wouldn’t be a bad move, strategically. I really don’t think we’re going to have anyone pulling a Nader this time around (and I really doubt that he/she would get that much of a vote, given the cautionary tale we experienced the last time around.)
Hillary triangulates far too much for my taste, but considering the crew of total nuts over on the right (plus the whole SCOTUS issue) I know who I’ll vote for.
@grumpy realist:
Nope I’m done with southern males right now. In my opinion, let them prove themselves not to be traitors (reading up a lot on the civil war in celebration of Appomattox Day) before they should enter the conversation for President or Vice President. We see from the #47Tratiors letter that they shouldn’t even be trusted to be Senators.
For those pushing a white male, why is it Ok to have two white males on the ticket, but an African American or a woman must have a white male to “balance” the ticket. My preference, Elizabeth Warren as vice president, lets balance the ticket with an economic progressive. For those thinking but we lose a Democratic Senator, well screw Massachusetts they should have never elected a Republican Governor.
Until those scumbags Republicans can be trusted to do whats best for the country over whats best for themselves and their party I wouldn’t elect them to be dogcatcher.
@ernieyeball:
Not sure we can really count Johnson. He arguably never would have been president had Kennedy not been assassinated.
@Loviatar: I’d love to see Elizabeth Warren on the ticket, but she really needs to have a period somewhere as Governor to be a viable candidate. Also, I think she realizes she’s more effective where she is, causing banksters to squirm under her laser-like questions. As a powerhouse expert in financial law, she’s got much more firepower.
@Loviatar:
Keeping that big tent big, huh? 😀
Can’t count him as what?
Lyndon Johnson ran for President v. Barry Goldwater in 1964.
I suppose if Lyndon Johnson had run in 1968 maybe Richard Nixon would never have been president.
How many different ways can we do this?
@grumpy realist:
No need, depending on the state being Governor is either overrated or no prediction of future actions.
—-
Put her on the ticket, give her an economic portfolio with concurrent power to enact.
—–
Additionally I would love to see the sexist’s heads explode with an accomplished all female ticket. We would see a repeat of the Obama phenomenon, but instead of racism we would see it enacted with sexism.
@Tillman:
As the Supreme Court proved in 2000 all I need is 5 votes.
@ernieyeball:
Let me put it another way – had Johnson not been Kennedy’s VP, had he run against Kennedy in 1964 it’s doubtful many outside of Texas would have known who the guy was.
Kennedy’s death propelled him into an office that he arguably never would have won on his own had never been attached to Kennedy. Of course people knew who he was in 1964 – he was the incumbent president. You can’t compare that with someone who has never held the office.
@Tillman:
I think he/she is just being realistic. There is little chance of a Dem candidate carrying any Southern state at this point, and probably for a while yet to come. Expending resources on trying to campaign there, or selecting a running mate with the intention of trying to sway Southern voters, is self-defeating for the party.
We’ve already proven that we no longer need the South to win national elections, so why select a Southern running mate when it 1) buys you nothing and 2) potentially alienates moderates elsewhere in states that you actually expect to carry?
@HarvardLaw92:
Yeah what you said.
You always put it so much nicer than I do. 🙂
If Eddie had asked your version of his question I would not have answered Lyndon Johnson.
But I was answering Eddies question.
@grumpy realist:
See what GE did today…Dodd/Frank and Elizabeth Warren at work.
@HarvardLaw92: if they’re alienated by the mere idea of a Southern white male as a president or vice president, I would submit they are not moderates.
@ernieyeball:
Ok, let me be blunt. Johnson wasn’t a candidate for president when he ran. He WAS the fricking president, running for reelection. It’s a specious comparison.
@Tillman:
I would submit they aren’t moderates either, they’re realist.
If you’ve observed southern males (sub species Republican) over the past 14 years and still trust them with power then you’re no moderate either, you’re a reactionary. The moderates mostly reside in the Democratic party, of the few, very few that may reside in the Republican party they have no power.
@Tillman:
I’m not sure you’re aware of just how off the deep end conservative the South is viewed as being by folks elsewhere these days.
Is it fair to assert that the social conservative nutjobs who have assumed the position of being the public face of the South are representative of everyone who lives there? No, not even remotely.
But people do it anyway. It buys us nothing, and costs us a lot, to pursue something that we’re not going to win. That’s aside from the fact that the last thing we want Democratic messaging to be about is playing contra to the flawed, but I assure you widely held outside of the South, view that it’s the land of bible beaters.
I agree that it’s an unfair in many ways, but fixing the South’s image problem isn’t very important among the list of things that we care about as a party. The South is not our problem any longer. It’s your problem.
@HarvardLaw92:
Dammm, you keep prettifying my thoughts. Good Job. 🙂
Was Too!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1964_Democratic_National_Convention
No. He was running for election to USA Pres. for the first time. He was not elected on Nov. 22,1963. The first day of his first term.
If Lyndon Johnson was not the 1964 Democratic Party Candidate for President USA, who was?
@ernieyeball:
It doesn’t matter. He was the incumbent president when he ran in 1964, and he had name recognition solely because he was the incumbent president. It’s a flawed comparison.
@ernieyeball:
Surely you see the difference between a candidate who has never held national office and one who is the siting president in terms of name recognition, no?
@Loviatar: I have been a loyal member of the Southern Democratic party since the ’60’s. The Democrats are still strong around here at the local and state level. A Republican hasn’t won anything in our county since Reconstruction. And people of the South are not traitors. You are wrong on that.
If the Democratic party writes off the south, they do that at great risk.
@Tyrell:
Helpful hint – Southern Democrats have nothing in common with the modern Democratic party.
The last time that I checked, there wasn’t a single Dem member of Congress from a Southern state. For that matter, there isn’t a single Dem governor of a Southern state. The Republicans control both houses of every state legislature in the South.
Pray tell, where is this mythical Southern state you live in where Democrats are still a viable political party?
Why yes I do!
But that was not part of Eddies question.
Johnson was the Dem candidate in 1964. He had high name recognition and a long public record.
Now if you want to change Eddies question I already said I would have a different answer.
@Loviatar: I’m sorry, weren’t we talking about nominating a southern white male as Democratic VP? Or were you just so entranced by your realism that you decided to focus your ire on the stereotypical southern white male, who is Republican, who won’t vote or even express any opinion worth caring about on the Democratic VP choice?
@HarvardLaw92:
Yes, and I’m also aware that people resort to stereotypes when they have limited information, that the news media focuses on negative stories to sensationalize, and that people who have views that don’t coincide with reality tend to be horrible problem-solvers.
Let me make this clear: I have next to no quarrel on the short term strategic part of your post. Long term, it’s misguided. We have conservatives utterly freaked out about demographics working against them to transform Southern states with Democratic-voting majorities in the near-future. To “abandon” the South, as you so dramatically put it, would be paying the opportunity cost further down the line electorally, allowing blacks, Hispanics, and first-generation Southern whites (lot of damn Yankees move down here) to become acculturated to the noxious “white male” disease Loviator despises, shaving your possible majority thinner as they vote against their own interests. Trust me, I’ve met plenty of these people.
What I have a problem with is the outright prejudice Loviator espouses here. That doesn’t grow your damn party, and given California’s future of drought and the South’s persistent population growth as compared to the North, it’s not worth dismissing a large ethnic group because you find the other party full of them.
And as I wrote this, I described many of the problems that plagued the Republican Party naught but decades ago: a focus on near-term goals at the expense of long-term strategy, demonization of entire ethnic groups for their perceived ideology, etc. I can’t believe this shit doesn’t bother people who claim to hate Republicans.
@Tillman:
Like I said, we do not need the South to win national elections. Why would we waste the effort?
I’ll fully admit that I detest, and I do mean detest, pretty much everything about the South. For me, it’s akin to a foreign country within our borders that is beyond redemption. I do my level best to never go there if I can avoid it. That is my issue, and I’ll claim it as being such, but the conclusions I’m drawing remain strategic in nature. My goal is to win, and the South does not help me accomplish that.
As long as I have Republicans demonizing blacks and Hispanics, they’re helping my long-term goals. if they pivot on those and stop being the party that they are, the entire country benefits, so I’m not seeing the downside.
@HarvardLaw92: Ah, well then, consider checking again. Let me just cite NC’s Democratic members of the House of Representatives for you. NC is the South, right? We did, after all, secede.
1st District: Butterfield
4th District: Price
12th District: Adams (neither white nor male, this one!)
Not a majority, but weren’t we all complaining about Republican state legislatures brought in by the Tea Party gerrymandering the hell out of the nation to gain electoral power they didn’t have? They changed my district, the 13th, in the Great Gerrymandering of ‘010, which is why Miller, the guy I voted for going back to ’06, didn’t run in 2012. The dude joined the Congressional Bike Caucus, for God’s sake, and was talking about income inequality to Ben Bernanke in 2006. How much more stereotypical liberal can you get?!
But hey, keep those stereotypes of yours. Stereotypes give us all flaws, and if we weren’t flawed we wouldn’t be appealing.
@HLaw95
You said:
Clearly he was.
He was not running for reelection.
Then you said:
Does that work in court?
@Tillman:
I had a whole extremely prejudicial comment written, but I’ve gained a little couth as I’ve aged. So I’ll leave it with what HarvardLaw92 said.
@ernieyeball:
The context is about the NOMINATION. Clinton is being assumed to be the Democratic nominee in a way and to an extent that we typically only see for incumbent presidents.
In other words, it was ASSUMED as a given that Barack Obama would be the Democratic Party’s nominee in 2012, because he was the incumbent president running for the office again.
It was ASSUMED that Johnson would be the Democratic nominee in 1964, because he was the incumbent president. He faced at best token opposition aside from Wallace (who had his own issues).
It was ASSUMED that Bill Clinton would be the Democratic nominee in 1996, because he was the incumbent president.
That is the point being made – Clinton is being shown a degree of deference and an assumption about her inevitably being the Democratic nominee that is typically reserved only for sitting presidents who are eligible to run again, DESPITE THE FACT THAT SHE IS NOT THE PRESIDENT.
@Loviatar:
Well, he’s a lawyer, he’s used to “prettifying.” My lawyer can translate me screaming, “I want to fwck those aszholes up,” into, “Michael is concerned that. . .”
@HarvardLaw92: You have to understand, ernie’s the closest we get to a liberal troll around here.
He’s not a troll. But would I be far off the mark describing you, ernie, as impish? Or at least a very good motivated reasoner. (which should be taken as compliments)
Also, last comment’s caught in moderation, but it’s a list of Democratic members of the House of Representatives from North Carolina, a short story about how damn liberal my former Congressman was (he joined the goddamn Bike Caucus and “occasionally blogs” at Daily Kos), and some sentence about stereotypes making us beautiful. I don’t know, too relaxed to care. Keep up the good fight.
@Tillman:
When the legislature packs African-Americans into isolationist districts, it probably isn’t surprising that those districts end up electing African-American Democrats to office, but point taken.
@michael reynolds:
Never quibble about minutiae with someone who writes 10,000 word documents, then proceeds to call them “briefs” 😀
Ask me no questions I’ll tell you no lies!
@HarvardLaw92:
I’m too linear and logical in my writing and I also put a great deal of passion into my words choices. If you’re wrong you wrong and if you’re and azshole, you’re an azshole, I don’t see the point in sparing an azshole’s feelings.
@Tillman:
See thats just wrong, all my white southern male friends don’t think I’m prejudice. 😉
@HarvardLaw92: Well then, let me introduce you, sir, to David Price. Second on my woefully short list, white, male, early opponent of Iraq, theologian, political scientist, and utterly boring going off his leadership score.
I should also introduce my former congressmen who was also listed in that short story about gerrymandering, Brad Miller. You’ll note white Southerners don’t have leadership positions. I imagine it’s because they’re very boring but practical people. They vote a lot, you’ll note. Miller stands out for bringing up income inequality to Ben Bernanke in a 2006. (I can’t pierce the WSJ paywall, but maybe you’re a subscriber?)
@Loviatar:
I respect that. It’s just not always a productive strategy. My ultimate boss, back when I was a prosecutor, is probably the most talented trial litigator I have ever encountered. She could convince a jury to invite her over for dinner in the process of insulting them. Now, I’ve never reached that level of artistry, but I did try to learn from her.
The most important lesson she ever taught me was that having the most rock solid case in the world is immaterial if the jury isn’t hearing what you are saying – and they stop listening when they start disliking you.
Not saying you’re disliked, by any means. Just saying that a overly confrontational style is sometimes self-defeating. Passion is a good thing, but make the passion serve the argument, not vice-versa.
@Tillman:
Understood, and for obvious reasons I’m no expert on NC politics, but hasn’t Price moved somewhat to the right of late? I can’t remember if they redrew his district to isolate Chapel Hill / Durham or not.
@Loviatar: Because it’s diplomatic to do so, and while trolls say you catch more flies with shit, I still like honey. Smearing shit in people’s faces doesn’t tend to make them see your way of thinking unless you’re prepared to shovel it in, and Josh Marshall’s reflection on the North being willing to fight a war but not carry through on Reconstruction makes it hypocritical. An overrated vice, sure, but still a vice.
And the more I learn about the world, the more I’ve found speaking the truth to be a hard thing to do in vast generalities, or at least hard to do eloquently. I’m an academic at heart, I suppose.
Anyway, two comments in moderation because I feel the need to cite lots of things. If they ever see the light of day, maybe nothing will happen.
@HarvardLaw92: Beats me, I just learned about the guy today. I wouldn’t be surprised; NC Democrats elected to national office tend to be Frank Underwoodish, but mind-numbingly boring.
True…only those who fought for and supported the Confederacy against this country were traitors…and, of course, those who support such people are supporting traitors…
@cd6:
Agree with you on this.It’s the kind of long range planning the Democrats should be doing. My VP candidates?
Martin O’Malley or Julian Castro. Both are way too young and green now but by 2024 they will be ready.
@stonetools:
I like Martin, but I think Castro is more beneficial from an electoral perspective.
@HarvardLaw92:
@Tillman:
Oh, I agree with both of you. Its a fault of mine thats held me back both personally and professionally.
Unfortunately, right now we have groups in this country who are not amenable to facts and whose sole purpose is to harm others. They hide behind the fact because its now considered impolite and rude we no longer call an azshole an azshole. These people aren’t open to convincing so I no longer try, my goal is to inform. I’ll leave the diplomacy to HL92, Michaels, gr and others like them, they’re better at it anyway. My personality is more suited to saying ignore the words and watch the deeds, that guy is an azshole.
Like Richard Nixon, who I once worked for, the Clintons are both shifty and somewhat corrupt deal makers, but leaders. But, like Richard Nixon, the Clintons are also true born leaders. The country would be better off if Bill Clinton would have been simply appointed president for life, but Hillary running is a good second choice.
Putin is a questionable leader of Russia, but is smart and knows how to lead. The Clintons are also questionable, but know how to lead as well. After 16 years of weak leadership by Bush and Obama, the country needs the more authoritarian Hillary Clinton to move ahead and get on track…
Hillary’s Achilles heal is her overconfidence borne out of her arrogance.
Her election in 2016 is as inevitable as it was in 2008. What the GOP has working in its favor, however, is that Hillary actually believes this.
I initially wanted someone like Fauxcahantas Warren or some other left wing nut job to get into the race to stir the pot, but on second thought I’m glad that Hillary will be untested going into the general.
Let her make her mistakes in the general election rather than fine tuning things in a primary.
@Paul Hooson:..Did you get to change the tapes in the Oval Office?
Which fake accent will she use? Black church, cookie baking grandma, Lonk Island, Goldman Sachs white shoe, drawl y’all, cattle futures trading pit staccato ??
@ernieyeball:
In that case I nominate Obama in 2012, Bush in 2004, Clinton in 1996, and Reagan in 1984 to answer Eddie’s question.
@Paul Hooson: I don’t know, man. There’s a reason Nixon imploded; the man’s character wasn’t suited to the job. The only one Barber cites with the same personality that’s remembered fondly by history suffered from a stroke and didn’t technically serve the last two years of his term.
I wonder which category the average conservative places Barack Obama in. I think Bush 43’s a -positive for sure.
@ernieyeball: @ernieyeball:
Sorry, but no dice. Nice try at parsing, but if you’re going to count Johnson’s years as a Representative, then you’ll probably have to count Hillary’s years as Arkansas First Lady, which makes her years in Public office much longer than Johnsons.
1937-1964 = 27 years.
Clinton has been First Lady of Arkansas for 12 years. 8 Years as First Lady of the USA. 8 Years as a Seantor from NY. 4 years as Sec of State.
That’s 32 years right there.
The correct answer… despite your attempted parsing is…. “No.” There has not been.
When he was voted in as President USA for the first time in Nov. 1964 Lyndon Johnson had served as an elected official at the Federal level for 27 consecutive years.
I don’t see where Obama, Bush, B. Clinton or Reagan even come close.
First Ladies or First Gentlemen (Husbands of female Governors?) are not elected to their posts and as far as I know do not have Constitutionally defined duties that they are bound to by an Oath of Office.
Being married to a President or a Governor is not the same as serving in the Federal Congress.
If you are going to count Mrs. Clinton’s time as First Lady, I am going to count LBJ’s public service from 1930 to 1937.
@Tillman: Nixon was unfortunately very self-destructive, but strangely did have a leadership charisma when you met him in real life. I was only 17 when I worked for him as a sort of youth worker.
@ernieyeball: I was never that far up the chain, only a 17 year old youth worker.
@Paul Hooson:..So you did not cause the 18 1/2 min gap in the Rosemary Woods tape? Do you have any inside dope as to what happened?
Did Nixon really believe anyone would buy the explanation they provided?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/92/Rose_Mary_Woods.jpg
Why do you think Nixon did not destroy the tapes after it was revealed they existed?
Did Pat really wear a “respectable Republican cloth coat”?
http://watergate.info/1952/09/23/nixon-checkers-speech.html
I always thought Julie Nixon was kinda’ cute but I never could figure out her taste in men.
http://davelandweb.com/nixon/images/dl_book/DSC_4579.jpg
@Paul Hooson:..Did you get to meet Elvis when he visited the White House?
http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/nsa/elvis/elnix.gif
Do you think he is still in the building?
@Guarneri:
Pretty sure it won’t be W’s fake Texas accent.
Saw W on TV slip and clearly say “nucle”, stop, do his trademark deer in the headlights look for about three seconds, then say “nuk uh ler”. You could almost see the wheels turning, “Rove said he’d punish me if I said that right, what is it I’m supposed to say, ah, got it.”
@Paul Hooson:
We were in DC at the same time, sounds like. Exciting times. May we never repeat them.
@Loviatar: in my experience, it’s the difference between using a club and using a stiletto.
Plus, it’s fun discovering exactly how far you can dig the knife in and still remain consistent with the ABA ethics code.
@HarvardLaw92: IIRC, Obama carried VA, NC, FL in ’08; in ’12, he carried VA and FL.
@SC_Birdflyte: For political purposes, VA and FL should no longer be considered southern states. (I said that just to see if I could start another semantic argument like the one about incumbents and candidates.)