The Era of Big Clintons is Soon Over

The Era of Big Clintons is Soon Over YahooNews is a leading contender for Headline of the Day honors for “The Era of Big Clintons is Soon Over,” which they’ve appended to an AP piece by Calvin Woodward. The key ‘graph:

One quarter of Americans have never known life without a Clinton trying for or having the presidency. Millions have gone from diapers to diplomas in the time of the Clintons.

And, of course, a Bush or a Clinton had been on the national ballot every four years since 1980. Unless Hillary or Jeb gets the veep slot — which strikes me as exceedingly unlikely — that streak will end, too.

As to the premise of the headline and the piece, I’m not so sure. For one thing, I’m still not convinced Hillary will drop out gracefully, making the “soon” premature. And it’s all but a given that Chelsea will make her own run at some point.

Photo credit: Chris Bender

FILED UNDER: General, , , ,
James Joyner
About James Joyner
James Joyner is a Security Studies professor at Marine Corps University's Command and Staff College and a nonresident senior fellow at the Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security at the Atlantic Council. He's a former Army officer and Desert Storm vet. Views expressed here are his own. Follow James on Twitter @DrJJoyner.

Comments

  1. Dave Schuler says:

    it’s all but a given that Chelsea

    It’s too early to tell. As evidence I’d submit that none of the generation of Kennedy’s following John, Robert, and Teddy look particularly likely to seek the presidency for the foreseeable future.




    0



    0
  2. Bithead says:

    As to the premise of the headline and the piece, I’m not so sure. For one thing, I’m still not convinced Hillary will drop out gracefully, making the “soon” premature.

    Yeah, true. Which places such reports into the category of wishful thinking and creating the reality they most fervently pray to Gaia for each night.




    0



    0
  3. G.A.Phillips says:

    I still can’t wait till they start suing each other. RUN HILL RUN, lawsuits we can believe in!




    0



    0
  4. William d'Inger says:

    How should we remember H. Ross Perot? Had he not sucked off 15% of GHW Bush’s votes, none of this would have happened. Slick Willie would have joined the McGovern/Dukakis Losers Group. Gore would have gone back to tobacco farming. Hillary and Chelsea would be all but forgotten, and the only Chad we’d know would be a beach bum hanging around the bars in Key West.




    0



    0
  5. Gore would have gone back to tobacco farming.

    No Gore would have returned to the Senate. A replacement wasn’t appointed till 1993.

    and the only Chad we’d know would be a beach bum hanging around the bars in Key West.

    How can anyone forget Chad Everett star of Medical Center.

    Cheers,

    Bill




    0



    0
  6. Fence says:

    a Bush or a Clinton had been on the national ballot every four years since 1980.

    Doesn’t really make sense to lump the Clintons in with this one. The real factoid is that a Bush has been on the ballot in 6 of the past 7. You could make it Bush and Dole and the streak would be every ballot since 1976.

    How should we remember H. Ross Perot? Had he not sucked off 15% of GHW Bush’s votes, none of this would have happened.

    I thought this had been decisively disproven, that Perot voters’ second choice was pretty evenly split. Without Perot Clinton would not have carried Montana, and perhaps not Georgia, but nationally the outcome would have been the same.

    But an interesting thought. If HW had been reelected W couldn’t have run in 1996 and not 2000 either if the GOP won in 1996. Any scenario that removes the W Presidency sounds good to me.




    0



    0
  7. William d'Inger says:

    Need I remind anybody that Hillary hasn’t lost yet? We’ve seen her go from inevitable winner to inevitable loser, but inevitability is kind of like the dollar — it isn’t worth so much anymore. Personally, I’m going to wait until it’s over. Hillary may know know more about the RFK scenario than she’s letting on.




    0



    0
  8. Bithead says:

    Well, it’s like I said the other day… the Democrat reaction to this statement of hers is interesting, and seems to be operating within the realm of a reputation that few in the Democrat party would admit existed until the last month or two.

    Where is the vehement protest, the charges of a vast right wing conspiracy smearing a woman and a Democrat, from the usual suspects that we got for so many years, every time the subject came up?

    They’re gone with the wind.

    The Democrats saw judging Mrs Clinton on her reputation as a threat to Democrat Party power, back in the 90’s, and these days they see Mrs Clinton’s reputation as a threat to Democrat party power. They’re willing to acknowledge, now, the reputation they so loudly denied back in the day.

    I am forced to conclude that these Democrats knew full well what Mrs. Clinton and her politics represented all through the 90s. They also suspected Mrs. Clinton and her involvement in the deaths of so many people as we pointed out, all through the 90s. It wasn’t that they didn’t believe the rest of us when we told them. They knew we were right. They knew the Clintons were dangerous. Yet, they defended her. Why? Because they held the Democrat party power to be of greater value than the lives that got lost. In the end, that’s the only explanation for their difference in attitude between then and now. It’s clear to my mind that the source of corruption is not the Clintons, but the Democrats themselves, who hold party power above all else.

    Now why are we supposed to trust the Democrat party with our country, again? Explain this to me.




    0



    0
  9. yetanotherjohn says:

    Bithead,

    You have just barely brushed against the left’s hypocrisy with Clinton. What about “count every vote” from 2000. How military experience should be viewed from 2004. The bottom line is the left is not anchored in principle but seeks whatever seems to be the surest path to power.




    0



    0
  10. Grewgills says:

    I am forced to conclude that these Democrats knew full well what Mrs. Clinton and her politics represented all through the 90s. They also suspected Mrs. Clinton and her involvement in the deaths of so many people as we pointed out, all through the 90s.

    Really? You actually still believe the Vince Foster murder, teenagers tied to train tracks a la Snidley Whiplash scenarios peddled in the 90s? You actually believe that this old nonsense is responsible for the reaction to Clinton’s Kennedy comment?
    If you actually believe either of those things you need to lay off the meds because you are as far gone as the 9/11 truthers.




    0



    0
  11. Bithead says:

    You actually still believe the Vince Foster murder?

    Why sure.
    Let’s imagine Karl Rove turns up in Ft Marcy park with a gunshot to the head and with a gun in his hand that won’t fire. Do you assume it’s suicide?




    0



    0
  12. G.A.Phillips says:

    No Gore would have returned to the Senate. A replacement wasn’t appointed till 1993.

    No ALgore would have started saving the world before it was to late and we would be all good now.




    0



    0
  13. Kevin says:

    Calvin Woodward is a pro-Obama asshole who is good at spreading nonsense.




    0



    0
  14. anjin-san says:

    They also suspected Mrs. Clinton and her involvement in the deaths of so many people as we pointed out, all through the 90s.

    I am pretty sure Hillary had Jimmy Hoffa whacked too…

    And probably Archduke Ferdinand

    Tell us bit, has Chealsea made her bones yet?




    0



    0
  15. Tony Smith says:

    The great thing is that Obama won’t have an “era” but merely a season!!!! With sentiments like mine and other “defectors,” he’s toast against McCain. So celebrate the end of the Clinton’s. But make sure you save some of that booze to drown your sorrows in November!

    Boycotting Obama Will Lead to Famine, Armageddon, Government-Controlled Uteruses and Other Scare Tactics

    We have seen a lot of desperate Democrats suddenly scrambling to “unify” with Clinton’s supporters, now that they realize that their snowjob of an election has caused turmoil and will lead to an Obama boycott in November. The classic response to our anger says that we need to relax, take a deep breath, not let emotions cloud judgment, and to think about Roe, your uterus, Third World uteruses, Iraq, thousands of dying soldiers, the economy, Bush III, and many other desperate pro-Obama talking points designed to crush the boycott and instill fear. Well, here’s my answer (disclaimer: I do not have a uterus).

    First of all, I do not need to clear my head and take a deep breath. I did not start voting yesterday, unlike many of Obama’s supporters. Instead, I am a lifetime Democrat, and I have been voting for Democrats locally, state-wide, and nationally since the mid-80s. I am very experienced having my candidate lose, but then moving on to support the party ticket. In past primaries, for example, I voted for Dean, Bradley, and Jesse Jackson (twice!). I get the idea of party unity, so stop treating me like a kid.

    Second, my vote in November goes beyond the liberal “issues” you describe: it protests liberal hypocrisy. The party espouses an equality rhetoric but has been completely dishonest and contradictory during this election. The party has bashed poor white people and people whose last names are Clinton. The party has ignored Latino voters because recognizing them challenges the “only racists vote for Clinton script.” The party has invented claims of racial injustice to demonize the Clintons. The party has ridiculed “uneducated” voters, even though Democrats supposedly represent disadvantaged people. Male party members and liberal media have constantly called for Clinton to drop out — starting after Iowa — in order to place an aura of doubt around her campaign. The party has ignored voters in Florida and Michigan in order to legitimize Howard Dean’s bad judgment. The party has completely ignored or even denied the sexist treatment of Clinton, while responding with absolute venom to any real or imagined “racism” directed towards Obama. The party has allowed Obama to wear multiple racial hats — the nonracial black man, the just black enough to be an historic black president, and the black racial victim —- to secure votes. If Clinton deviates even slightly from a prior script, she is portrayed as a horrible witch who would do “anything to get elected.” I refuse to join this madness.

    In April, Obama pranced around and described Clinton as “Annie Oakley” gunning her way through Pennsylvania for votes. But when he came out looking like Steve Urkel bowling and drinking Yuengling for votes in the same state, the media and party ate it up — another “precious” Obama moment. Recently, CNN.COM posted footage of some mesmerized journalist covering Obama’s jeans. Why should I have to endorse this mayhem?

    Third, I am unmoved by the progressive issues that the pro-Obama side uses to scare us into voting for him. But you got to love “the horror”: If you vote for McCain or don’t vote for Obama, the Supreme Court will overrule Roe, thousands of men and women will die in Iraq, poor people will remain poor, the environment will decline, we will not achieve peace on earth and domestic tranquility, and you will deprive “our children” from having a “great country.” I feel a tear coming!

    These are just Karl Rovian “red alerts.” Obama is not entitled to our votes. He did not earn my loyalty. Whatever loyalty the party had from me prior to this election has been depleted. Earlier on when we wanted to discuss progressive issues, the Obama camp and the media silenced our efforts and instead focused on the big rock star pep rallies, Obamania, Camelot, weeping college students, and a host of other unimportant concerns. People could not tell us specifically why they supported him, but they knew that he was the best and that he would bring “change.” They told us that we and Clinton were cold and unhopeful and that emotions and inspiration were more important. Clinton was a mere “policy wonk,” while Obama made people “feel good again.” Well, enjoy your Hallmark moments and stop being two-faced. Suddenly, you want to talk about the issues because it benefits Obama. Earth to my fellow Democrats: Obama’s success does not dictate the way I vote.

    I am still focused on issues, but topics beyond your “red scare” alerts are important to me as well. My vote responds to a party of hypocrites who dismiss loyal Democrats, bash older folks and women, and manipulate race – while calling it “progressive.” My protest is about not wanting to be a part of a vote that legitimizes sexism. I do not wish to condone the younger Democrats’ misunderstanding of the Republican witch hunts that hurt all Democrats in the past — what they call “Clinton scandals,” when every honest person recalls them as Ken Starr scandals! Where was the “education” on this issue by party veterans? The DNC rushes to bash McCain for his 100 years comment, which reputable entities like Factcheck.org say was not even true, but Clinton is misportrayed abundantly and all we get is silence. Party leadership and the media sharply denounce anything that could negatively impact Obama. They describe legitimate and fair criticism of him as racist, mean-spirited, evil, or “Clinton politics.” Clearly the party leadership has determined that anytime he looks weak, the “boys” will endorse him or call for Clinton to leave because she is “hurting the party” and “kneecapping” the “first viable black presidential candidate” – as if Clinton should bear responsibility for remedying the country’s history of racism which has kept people of color out of high office. Well, party leadership and media, you made these rules; suffer the consequences. To paraphrase Obama, don’t tell me my disgust with your behavior doesn’t matter. Don’t tell me sexism doesn’t matter. Don’t tell me liberal hypocrisy doesn’t matter. Don’t tell me fake racial politics doesn’t matter. Don’t tell me I must vote for Obama in order to be a “real” Democrat. If being a real Democrat means bashing women, the poor, and the elderly, manipulating race, ignoring Latinos, and stifling dissent, then I respectfully resign my membership! Achieving justice requires sacrifice, brutal honesty, and passionate commitment. I will not “endorse anything to get a Democrat elected,” and neither should you.

    — A Black Man Supporting Hillary Clinton and the Women Who Want More…..




    0



    0
  16. Bithead says:

    Well, apparently you’re unlike most Obama supporters, Anjin. Given their response to Clinton’s RFK comments, they wouldn’t put it past her to do such, if they came between her and political power. How else to explain the outcry?

    (Insert how it’s all a Rovian plot, here)




    0



    0
  17. anjin-san says:

    — A Black Man Supporting Hillary Clinton and the Women Who Want More…..

    Funny how all these people we have never seen here before are suddenly popping up railing against Obama. The McCain camp already seems a bit desperate.

    Keep those doggies trollig…




    0



    0
  18. anjin-san says:

    the outcry?

    “the outcry” is mostly taking heads that need something to talk about…

    Obama supporters are by in large focused on November. Like me, they found the comment distasteful, but nothing to raise your blood pressure about.




    0



    0
  19. Tony Smith says:

    A Black Man Supporting Hillary Clinton and the Women Who Want More…..

    “Funny how all these people we have never seen here before are suddenly popping up railing against Obama. The McCain camp already seems a bit desperate.

    Keep those doggies trollig…”

    Sorry, but I don’t need to pretend to be a Clinton supporter to make my point. I am a lifetime Democrat, and if this seems implausible to you, then so be it. And I have been posting with this screen name long before the “divisions” started. For example, back in Feb. 2007, I made the following statement in the Washington Post:

    I do not believe that Clinton should have said anything to Obama about the Geffen interview. Why not go after Geffen himself? I do support her campain, though, and find it appalling that people — especially men — criticize her as being “ambitious.” All presidential candidates are ambitious; I suppose this is only negative for women candidates. Ambition is, in fact, a positive trait (as opposed to complacency). In fact, I pride myself on being ambitious. And like Obama, my ambition led me from growing up a poor, black household to becoming a double-Ivy Leaguer; I even managed to get accepted to an even higher ranked and more selective law school (yes, the one that Bill and Hilary attended).

    Also, as for Clinton’s endorsement of the legislation authorizing force in Iraq, the same people who are now decrying her vote supported Kerry and cheered the orchestrated demise of Howard Dean (who was the loudest candidate opposing the war). In the end, Clinton should not have directed her attention to Obama. So — big blunder! But I do not see her as the monster that most do.

    PS: Obama is as much a lawyer and politician as Hilary. And he strikes me as a very amibitious fellow (otherwise, why not just remain content with a secure Senate seat?).

    Posted by: Tony Smith | February 21, 2007 6:06 PM

    PS: I tried to post the link to this quote, but the Spam program kept blocking it. Just google the quote…




    0



    0
  20. anjin-san says:

    Sure thing Tony. Say “hi” to Rush for us.




    0



    0
  21. Tony Smith says:

    Anjin-san, apparently the Democrats love denial. It’s very simplistic to say that party defectors are linked with the Republicans, but appparently, you have not been reading the news. According to CNN pro-Clinton groups will protest the DNC meeting this weekend. Others have formed to organize defectors. And two new polls out today – from Gallup and Rasmussen — show Clinton beating McCain but Obama losing to him. Why? Because he loses 1/3 of Clinton’s support. So burying your head in the sand does nothing. The fact that Obama is running around swing states and meeting with Clinton’s demographics (older Jewish people in Florida, working class in Michigan) shows that his team is aware of this. Ah, but perhaps the Great Obama has been duped by Rush as well…..pity.




    0



    0
  22. Grewgills says:

    So Bit,
    The US Park Police, the FBI, Robert Fiske, and Ken Starr were/are all in on the cover-up. If Clinton had been in the White House for 9/11 you would be a truther.

    Well, apparently you’re unlike most Obama supporters, Anjin. Given their response to Clinton’s RFK comments, they wouldn’t put it past her to do such, if they came between her and political power.

    Name some.




    0



    0
  23. anjin-san says:

    Anjin-san, apparently the Democrats love denial.

    This is a very interesting comment for someone who claims to be “a lifetime democrat”. Because your phrasing makes it pretty obvious you are not a Democrat, not that there was really much doubt about that.

    Run along troll boy…




    0



    0
  24. Ted says:

    Here’s an important piece of advice: If it looks like it’s going to be McCain/Palin anyway (and that should be a “no brainer” for Team McCain), McCain should announce NOW or VERY SOON, rather than later towards the convention. There’s currently a growing chorus for Obama/Hillary (as VP) ticket (in fact the Dems are likely aware of the Palin phenomenon). If the GOP waits while movement for Hillary as VP grows — even worse until after it is solidified that Hillary will/could be VP pick — selecting Palin will be portrayed by Dems/liberal media more as a reaction by GOP selecting its own female (overshawdoing Palin’s own remarkable assets), rather than McCain taking the lead on this. Selecting Palin now or early (contrary to the punditocracy) will mean McCain will be seen as driving the course of this campaign overwhelmingly, and the DEMS will be seen as merely reacting. And, there’s absoultely no down-side to this because even if Hillary is a no-go as VP for Obama, the GOP gains by acting early. McCain the maverick. Palin the maverick. Do it now!

    There’s no reason, and actually substantial negative, in McCain waiting to see what the Dems do first insofar as his picking Palin as VP, because, no matter who Obama picks, Palin is by far (and I mean far) the best pick for McCain and the GOP, especially in this time of GOP woes. The GOP can be seen as the party of real ‘change’ (albeit I hate that mantra, change, change, bla bla), while not really having to change from GOP core conservative values, which Palin more than represents.

    In light of the current oil/energy situation, as well as the disaffected female Hillary voters situation, and growing focus on McCain’s age and health, Palin is more than perfect — now.

    (Perhaps Team McCain is already on to this.)




    0



    0
  25. Tony Smith says:

    This is a very interesting comment for someone who claims to be “a lifetime democrat”. Because your phrasing makes it pretty obvious you are not a Democrat, not that there was really much doubt about that.

    Run along troll boy

    Actually, your calling me a “troll” suggests that I have probably voted Democrat longer than you have been alive. I can say that the Democrats love denial precisely because I have a long history with this party that apparently lack. I have witnessed it’s folly with Gore, Kerry, Carter, Dukakis, and Mondale. I am very familiar with my party’s ability to deny very serious problems with it’s electoral prospects.

    I notice that you never respond to any information I give. I provided a quote from a Wash. Post forum with my same sreen name from Feb. 2007, that criticizes Clinton for going after Obama — but saying that still supported Clinton; and I posted polling data indicating a number of Democratic defections. Rather than engaging that information, you, in a very juvenile fashion, simply call me a “troll.” Well, suit yourself. This is the very type of behavior that has led many Clinton supporters to detatch themselves from the Obama movement. Since this behavior is so effective in turning away lifetime Democrats, perhaps YOU are the Republican, not I…..




    0



    0
  26. Bithead says:

    The US Park Police, the FBI, Robert Fiske, and Ken Starr were/are all in on the cover-up. If Clinton had been in the White House for 9/11 you would be a truther.

    I note with some amusment that you’re avoiding the question I posed.

    Name some.

    Talk Left, for one. But don’t take my word for it; Go over to Memeorandum on the day when that story broke, and read the reactions for yourself. There’s quite a number of models and colors to chose from.




    0



    0
  27. Bithead says:

    I notice that you never respond to any information I give.

    Gee… and I thought I was the only one who noticed that.




    0



    0
  28. anjin-san says:

    Actually, your calling me a “troll” suggests that I have probably voted Democrat longer than you have been alive.

    Really? You voted for Stevenson?

    You are presenting a single post as your online resume? Funny, cause the rest of us have hundreds or thousands of them. So after a career consisting of one post, you just happen to show up on OTB, where the only Democrats are people who are pretty serious political bloggers. At the same time a bunch of other people none of us have never seen before show up spouting pretty much the same line of bs…

    LOL… Like I said, run along.




    0



    0
  29. Bithead says:

    LOL… Like I said, run along.

    You really think this aids your endless quest for creds, do you?




    0



    0
  30. rodney dill says:

    | I notice that you never respond to any information I give.

    Gee… and I thought I was the only one who noticed that.

    Ha, that is anjin’s leitmotif.




    0



    0
  31. anjin-san says:

    Damn, the attack gerbils are on me…




    0



    0
  32. ice says:

    obama has had it easy so far with the media.if hillary would have said boy wait a minute to a black news person where do you think the media would have taken that?however obama can say sweetie hold on to a white woman news person and media russert and the other puppets just ignore .america should be careful for anymore free passes we did that with bush on several ocassions and see what we are finding out now.the media is no longer giving the information we should have but what their ratings or owners dictate.signing off for now and sleep well knowing we are only a media misteak from diaster.




    0



    0