General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsCharles Pierce: If Not Hillary, Who?
Excellent long magazine article from Charles Pierce on primaries, with a close look at Martin O'Malley of Maryland.
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
Scuba
(53,475 posts)brooklynite
(94,745 posts)...actually since there's nobody with Obama's stature likely to run, probably make it 20-25 million.
Obama didn't have stature until he ran.
JustAnotherGen
(31,907 posts)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)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)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.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,376 posts)KingCharlemagne
(7,908 posts)OnlinePoker
(5,727 posts)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)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)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.
marym625
(17,997 posts)Since she is far more Republican than Democrat. Goldwater. Owned by Wall Street. Loser.
djean111
(14,255 posts)"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.
WillyT
(72,631 posts)marym625
(17,997 posts)Dog forbid she's what we have to vote for in 2016.
Oilwellian
(12,647 posts)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)"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.
pangaia
(24,324 posts)and perhaps you as well.
bullwinkle428
(20,631 posts)that a Clinton presidency will mean that you "ain't seen nothing yet".
djean111
(14,255 posts)longship
(40,416 posts)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)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)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.
FSogol
(45,529 posts)heaven05
(18,124 posts)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)Warren/Sanders would be virtually assassinated. I just hope they run and can fly over that crap.
brooklynite
(94,745 posts)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.
HoosierCowboy
(561 posts)Representative Alan Grayson
pangaia
(24,324 posts)As much a real Democrat as he may be.
brooklynite
(94,745 posts)The goal is to get elected, not to make the base happy.
marmar
(77,091 posts)Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)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.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)KJG52
(70 posts)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)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)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)I was at an event for Party donors last month. She's running.