MSNBC loves it some war and some Hillary.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_de_Blasio

I note as well that De Blasio describes himself as "progressive and proud," which The Nation seems to equate with being liberal. However, it is a DLC term that former Walmart board member, Hillary, used frequently in 2008 to describe her own policies, which, IMO, are anything but liberal.

I am not counting out De Blasio by far. He seems to have implemented some good things and I certainly hope that he is indeed a liberal. The fact that someone running for Mayor in the home of Occupy Wall Street mentioned income inequality during his primary campaign is not, for me, evidence of much, other than De Blasio's desire to win the NYC Democratic primary. If he wins the general, we will know. Right now, I don't think we know.

Moreover, the idea that his primary win says something about the nation as a whole is a bridge too far for me. Before 911, most Americans regarded NYC, especially Manhattan, as almost a foreign land. ("It's a great place to visit, but I wouldn't want to live there" was said by people who liked NYC enough to visit--and even that was not a majority of Americans.)


At first, Shrum either ignored or did not get what KVH was saying about a 2016 Presidential candidate's having to be liberal. When he did acknowledge it, he did so in some ways that seemed to me to be telling. Shrum opined that there were a lot of things Hillary could say about income inequality and the like.

Shrum also said that Hillary was smart enough not to run a triangulating campaign from the 1990s (the kind of campaign introduced to us by her triangulating husband, whom Hillary put on her list of ten best Presidents ever).

Not a word about what policies she might espouse, only what phrases she might use.

Shrum and Sharpton also reinforced the notion that the Democratic nominee will be Biden, if Hillary doesn't run, another thing MSNBC has been trying to sell since October 2012.

The conversation had also turned to age. Just for comparison: If elected, McCain would have turned 73 during his first year in the Oval Office; and Democrats in 2008 seemed to think that was unacceptable.

In 2017, when the next Presidential term begins, Biden will turn 75 (5 years older than St. Ronnie in his first year in the Oval Office) and Hillary will turn 70 during her first year in the Oval Office (same as St. Ronnie). And that is only at the start of the first term.

Is this something that will appeal to young voters? Or even to older voters, those who know or can readily imagine how it feels physically to be pushing 75?

Interestingly, on the topic of age, Shrum said that, after Obama, Democrats might welcome someone with experience and maturity.

Remind me: was Shrum saying anything about Obama's lack of experience in 2008 and 2012? If not, why not, and why should I believe him now?

Of course, Kennedy was young when elected President, as was Bubba Clinton. Teddy Roosevelt was the youngest President (42) when he succeeded McKinley on McKinley's assasination. Lincoln had very little experience in elected office--about the same as Obama. So, it's possible to be a young and/or relatively inexperienced President and achieve good things, even great things. Thing is, with people like Shrum in the background, it can be hard to tell these days who is a Lincoln and who is a Quayle.