Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

muriel_volestrangler

(101,376 posts)
Thu Oct 30, 2014, 07:57 AM Oct 2014

Charles Pierce: If Not Hillary, Who?

Excellent long magazine article from Charles Pierce on primaries, with a close look at Martin O'Malley of Maryland.

She has "cleared the field." That's what the smart people say. Without even announcing that she will run for president, Hillary Clinton has frozen the Democratic primary process. She has frozen the media's attention and the energies of the party's activists, and, most important of all, she has frozen the wallets of all the big donors, all of whom are waiting for her to jump to decide what they will be doing over the next two years. It is hard to say she's been unusually coy. After leaving her job as secretary of state, Clinton went on a massive book tour, and she's been a fixture on the high-end lecture circuit, her fees for which suddenly became a campaign issue, even though there isn't a campaign yet. And most significantly, she and her people have begun to distance themselves a bit from the president she once served. She arguably was critical of Barack Obama's "Don't do stupid shit" policy. And when the ISIS threat arose in the Middle East, there were a few strategically placed comments from anonymous "Clinton aides" that were critical of the president for not moving fast enough to meet that new threat. By the standards of the fall of 2014, by the same standards that we judge Martin O'Malley by, Hillary Clinton is clearly running for president. And they say she has cleared the field.

They say she has cleared the field because that's what political pros get paid to say, but they also say it as a kind of supplication to the gods of political chance, because there is one thing that people in the party try very hard not to talk about these days, something that remains unspoken for the same reason that theater people do not say Macbeth and baseball players never mention a no-hitter in progress.
...
It is not cowardice if it can be sold as shrewd calculation. And it can be sold as shrewd calculation, because that is the way wisdom becomes conventional, and the more conventional it becomes, the less wise it is. After all, in the spring of 1991, President George H. W. Bush, the conqueror of the Levant, had an approval rating of 80 by-God percent. This scared away most of whom were perceived to be on the Democratic party's A-list, including Andrew Cuomo's father, from challenging him. The elder Bush had cleared both fields, they said. One of the few people who stepped up was the governor of Arkansas, who put together a renegade staff that outhustled the Republicans for two years and got the governor of Arkansas, and his sharp lawyer of a wife, elected president. Some people look at a cleared field and see a place where there is limitless room to run.
...
Which brings us to the conventional contrarianism that, in our politics today and at this point in a presidential-election cycle, is more conventional than it is contrary. The speculation goes this way: Clinton had the same advantages in 2008 that she has today, with the exception of her subsequently having been secretary of state. She had first call on staff, on contributors, and on the spotlight. And she spent two years getting beaten to the punch and utterly wrong-footed by the renegade staff of a junior senator from Illinois that had a better handle on the prevailing zeitgeist and a far superior knowledge of the new communication technology and how best to put it to political use, and that got the senator from Illinois elected president. To make an easy historical parallel, Hillary Clinton in 2007 was William Seward in 1859, a senator from New York whose pockets were bulging with IOU's and who was a power in the party and its presumptive presidential nominee. Seward led the race all the way through two ballots at the 1860 Republican convention until he and his people got outmaneuvered by a judge named David Davis and the people working on behalf of a politician from Illinois whose speeches had galvanized the nation but whose political résumé was painfully limited to one term in Congress. Ultimately, of course, and to close the historical circle, the politician from Illinois became president and Seward served as his secretary of state.

http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/if-not-hillary-who-1114??src=rss
40 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Charles Pierce: If Not Hillary, Who? (Original Post) muriel_volestrangler Oct 2014 OP
I'd like to see Hillary as the Republican candidate in 2016. Scuba Oct 2014 #1
Just a guess but 17 million Democrats in the real world don't agree with you... brooklynite Oct 2014 #2
hmm fifthoffive Oct 2014 #3
I have to agree with you on this JustAnotherGen Oct 2014 #5
Obama had the stature of the 2004 Convention keynote... brooklynite Oct 2014 #9
As much as I like Sanders, were he to win the Dem nomination (having first changed his KingCharlemagne Oct 2014 #24
Hillary born Oct 1947 - she'd be 69; Sanders born Sept 1941 - he'd be 75 muriel_volestrangler Oct 2014 #34
God my math sucks today. Thanks for the correction(s) - nt KingCharlemagne Oct 2014 #35
Hillary would be half a year shy of the age Saint Ronnie took office. OnlinePoker Oct 2014 #40
Ages of Democratic possibilities Jim Lane Oct 2014 #38
At this time in 2006 JustAnotherGen Oct 2014 #6
wish I could K&R this! n/t marym625 Oct 2014 #13
K & R Thespian2 Oct 2014 #16
Excellent article. djean111 Oct 2014 #4
That... Is An Oustanding Paragraph... WillyT Oct 2014 #11
to me, it already is. marym625 Oct 2014 #14
This is what the Third Way is about Oilwellian Oct 2014 #18
That's exactly what it is. Marr Oct 2014 #26
+1 hifiguy Oct 2014 #37
The Democratic Party HAS ended as I knew it... pangaia Oct 2014 #22
If the very idea of a "Grand Bargain" bothered anyone here, I'm guessing bullwinkle428 Oct 2014 #31
Yup. djean111 Oct 2014 #32
We will see, when it's time. longship Oct 2014 #7
No they are not the only ones...far from it. zeemike Oct 2014 #19
Subtitle : "An argument against coronations, cleared fields, and conventional wisdom." bullwinkle428 Oct 2014 #8
K & R. n/t FSogol Oct 2014 #10
Not realistic, I know heaven05 Oct 2014 #12
It took less than a week to ruin Howard Dean marym625 Oct 2014 #15
It took Howard Dean to ruin Howard Dean... brooklynite Oct 2014 #28
If not Hillary, then Mr. Cahones for sure.. HoosierCowboy Oct 2014 #17
No, I do not agree on Grayson. pangaia Oct 2014 #23
Name a Presidential Candidate from the House who has ever done well... brooklynite Oct 2014 #27
K/R marmar Oct 2014 #20
Time will tell, possible candidates are open to run if they please, let's see who stacks up to Thinkingabout Oct 2014 #21
She's got a lot of smelly baggage on that unstoppable train. Tierra_y_Libertad Oct 2014 #25
Thoughtful and precise description of what could be, based on what has been... KJG52 Oct 2014 #29
+1000 JEB Oct 2014 #30
The full article is well worth the time required to read it. Thanks for posting. It KingCharlemagne Oct 2014 #33
Anyone who has been paying attention knows who HRC's REAL friends are hifiguy Oct 2014 #36
The article fixates on "what if she doesn't run"... brooklynite Oct 2014 #39

brooklynite

(94,745 posts)
2. Just a guess but 17 million Democrats in the real world don't agree with you...
Thu Oct 30, 2014, 08:17 AM
Oct 2014

...actually since there's nobody with Obama's stature likely to run, probably make it 20-25 million.

JustAnotherGen

(31,907 posts)
5. I have to agree with you on this
Thu Oct 30, 2014, 08:28 AM
Oct 2014

I don't believe it's over until probably June of 2016.

I think if people had options - and know there options - they won't just give the nomination to Clinton on a silver platter.

Also - we differ from Republicans in a key way. . . We don't believe it's 'that person's turn' or legacies.

They'll nominate Jeb because he's the devil they know.


We? We'll try to uncover all the scabs and warts on the field of candidates to find out how big of a devil they are.

brooklynite

(94,745 posts)
9. Obama had the stature of the 2004 Convention keynote...
Thu Oct 30, 2014, 09:21 AM
Oct 2014

He had the stature of winning a high profile race in Illinois.

He had the stature of being supported by a major political and fundraising operation which at this point 8 years ago was already well into operation.

Now, Elizabeth Warren COULD have the same stature, but she's supporting Hillary.

Martin O'Malley? He might run a decent campaign, but I have inside information his plan is to run as a "friendly opponent".

And Sanders? He's a nice guy, but winning 250,000 votes in Vermont doesn't really prepare you for a national campaign.

 

KingCharlemagne

(7,908 posts)
24. As much as I like Sanders, were he to win the Dem nomination (having first changed his
Thu Oct 30, 2014, 11:09 AM
Oct 2014

party registration to Dem) and then the general election, he would be 79 at his inauguration. (Same age concern applies to Hillary to a lesser extent also -- I think she would be 74 at her inauguration.) I'd prefer to see a younger Dem take the reins of leadership, perhaps someone who reflects the changing demographics of the country and who looks toward the future. I'm at a loss as to who could fill that role right off the top of my head.

OnlinePoker

(5,727 posts)
40. Hillary would be half a year shy of the age Saint Ronnie took office.
Thu Oct 30, 2014, 02:03 PM
Oct 2014

Even though she is fully capable of doing the job, her age will be an issue in the election. On the positive side, unlike Reagan, her parents lived into their 80s and 90s and neither suffered from mental issues as they aged.

 

Jim Lane

(11,175 posts)
38. Ages of Democratic possibilities
Thu Oct 30, 2014, 12:53 PM
Oct 2014

I did a compilation of the ages of the people most often mentioned as possibilities for 2016 -- http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025207099 -- with, for comparison, ages of some past Presidents and of our 2008 field.

Clinton, if elected, would be the second-oldest President ever, less than a year younger than Reagan was.

The youngest prospect on my list was Martin O'Malley (would be 54 on Inauguration Day). Even he would be older than all three of the most recent Democratic Presidents. He and Andrew Cuomo (would be 59) are the only ones on my list who will be under 60. Not since Harry S. Truman (64 when inaugurated in 1949 for his full term) have the Democrats won the election with a candidate who had turned 60.

JustAnotherGen

(31,907 posts)
6. At this time in 2006
Thu Oct 30, 2014, 08:30 AM
Oct 2014

I only knew him as the guy who gave a great speech at the 2004 Convention.

He had zero stature with me.

I think from reading my posts - you know I'm not on the Warren/Sanders bandwagon at all. But - I'd like to have a robust primary.

 

djean111

(14,255 posts)
4. Excellent article.
Thu Oct 30, 2014, 08:27 AM
Oct 2014
"To accept the idea that Hillary Clinton has cleared the field is not merely to put the Democratic party on the razor's edge of one person's decision. It also is to give a kind of final victory to tactics over substance, to money over argument, to an easy consensus over a hard-won mandate, and ultimately, to campaigning over governing. It is an awful, sterile place for a political party to be. And that's the thing about clearing the field: Clearing the field makes it easier to cross, but there's nothing living or growing there. It bakes brown in the sun and it cracks, and the rain runs down the cracks in vain rivulets, because there's no purpose to rain that falls on an empty field. Even the crows abandon it."


She has not cleared the field. Not by a long shot. To have cleared the field really would mean the end of the Democratic Party as I knew it, it would be the party of corporate money and hubris.

Oilwellian

(12,647 posts)
18. This is what the Third Way is about
Thu Oct 30, 2014, 10:00 AM
Oct 2014
It also is to give a kind of final victory to tactics over substance, to money over argument, to an easy consensus over a hard-won mandate, and ultimately, to campaigning over governing.


It's time for Democrats to unite against Third Way leadership. Putting the Clintons back in power would be disastrous for the party and country.
 

Marr

(20,317 posts)
26. That's exactly what it is.
Thu Oct 30, 2014, 11:24 AM
Oct 2014

"Triangulation" is a deeply cynical approach to politics that removes all substance from the process. You're never trying to build anything, never trying to lead-- just chasing that 50%+1 number. I think that empty approach to politics is the reason we've had so many ridiculously close elections in recent years. The parties know exactly how to split the populace to gain their vote while giving them nothing at all.

bullwinkle428

(20,631 posts)
31. If the very idea of a "Grand Bargain" bothered anyone here, I'm guessing
Thu Oct 30, 2014, 12:02 PM
Oct 2014

that a Clinton presidency will mean that you "ain't seen nothing yet".

longship

(40,416 posts)
7. We will see, when it's time.
Thu Oct 30, 2014, 08:43 AM
Oct 2014

Charlie, love you, but you're jumping the gun. Why would any rational person promote continuous presidential campaigns? For Christ sakes, the Brits often do it all in six weeks.

The only people perpetual presidential campaigns serve is the blabbergabs who write about them.

Shame on you.

zeemike

(18,998 posts)
19. No they are not the only ones...far from it.
Thu Oct 30, 2014, 10:37 AM
Oct 2014

The ones who benefit most from it is the media who will be the ones who get the money in the end...not to mention the fundraisers who spend their working life finding ways to raise more money to feed the media and themselves.
When you can spend a billion dollars on a presidential campaign there is a lot of gravy to go around...we have a political media complex.

bullwinkle428

(20,631 posts)
8. Subtitle : "An argument against coronations, cleared fields, and conventional wisdom."
Thu Oct 30, 2014, 09:07 AM
Oct 2014

For those that are thinking that CP is automatically "all in" for Hillary, or thinks it's a great idea that she's the only prominent candidate.

 

heaven05

(18,124 posts)
12. Not realistic, I know
Thu Oct 30, 2014, 09:41 AM
Oct 2014

but I do wish Elizabeth Warren/ Bernie Sanders as a candidate(s). Given the corporate money driven nature of our political process, yeah, who other but hillary....

marym625

(17,997 posts)
15. It took less than a week to ruin Howard Dean
Thu Oct 30, 2014, 09:46 AM
Oct 2014

Warren/Sanders would be virtually assassinated. I just hope they run and can fly over that crap.

brooklynite

(94,745 posts)
28. It took Howard Dean to ruin Howard Dean...
Thu Oct 30, 2014, 11:32 AM
Oct 2014

He was great at attracting crowds, and he was great at raising money; not so much on getting people to vote for him:

Iowa Caucus results:
John Kerry 37.6%
John Edwards 31.8%
Howard Dean 18.0%

That was followed by his campaign's disorganization in New Hampshire, which I witnessed in person:

New Hampshire results:
John Kerry 38.4%
Howard Dean 26.3%

The "Dean Scream" was a good story for political buffs, but had no impact on actual voters.

brooklynite

(94,745 posts)
27. Name a Presidential Candidate from the House who has ever done well...
Thu Oct 30, 2014, 11:24 AM
Oct 2014

The goal is to get elected, not to make the base happy.

Thinkingabout

(30,058 posts)
21. Time will tell, possible candidates are open to run if they please, let's see who stacks up to
Thu Oct 30, 2014, 10:43 AM
Oct 2014

her experience, her stand on the issues. Yep, there are lots of wrong stories running around, sometimes not factual. It is the cognitive dissonance, say something long enough then there will be believers.

KJG52

(70 posts)
29. Thoughtful and precise description of what could be, based on what has been...
Thu Oct 30, 2014, 11:34 AM
Oct 2014

Unfortunately, the Democratic Party is in thrall to its own destruction, much like its opponents... generally backing tactically sound big money centrists whose only vision for America is that a win by their opponents is an affront to nature and their ego. It is a repeat of the Grover Cleveland era of Democratic politics in America.

 

KingCharlemagne

(7,908 posts)
33. The full article is well worth the time required to read it. Thanks for posting. It
Thu Oct 30, 2014, 12:11 PM
Oct 2014

will bre a fascinating next couple of years.

I espcially like how Pierce broadened his metaphor of 'clearing the fields' to talk about the Republicans as a "field of locusts." I think I've met my match in hatred of the Republicans!

 

hifiguy

(33,688 posts)
36. Anyone who has been paying attention knows who HRC's REAL friends are
Thu Oct 30, 2014, 12:21 PM
Oct 2014

and, as George Carlin said, average people ain't in the club

HRC with famous war criminal:



HRC with famous Wall Street criminal (Lloyd Blankfein of Goldman):



Let there be an end to this goddamn plague of Clintons and Bushes.

brooklynite

(94,745 posts)
39. The article fixates on "what if she doesn't run"...
Thu Oct 30, 2014, 01:21 PM
Oct 2014

I was at an event for Party donors last month. She's running.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Charles Pierce: If Not Hi...