A new Clinton wave is coming this spring

[George II]

The Clinton family has made sporadic and often subdued appearances in the 18 months (538 days) since Hillary Clinton lost her presidential election. But we're about to see a lot more of them this spring.

Why it matters: This family has been on the national stage for 26 years — all or most of the lifetime of anyone under 50. Chelsea Clinton, now 38, was 11 when her father, Arkansas Gov. Bill Clinton, announced his entry into the race for the Democratic presidential nomination in October 1991. He was 45 then; is 71 now.

Be smart: As the 2020 presidential race ramps up, plenty of top Democrats we talk to would prefer new energy and faces to Clinton nostalgia/redemption.

What to watch...

Longtime Clinton supporters last week received an invitation offering access to the family (the green invitation features photos of Bill, Hillary and Chelsea) at a Clinton Foundation benefit on May 24 in New York, at prices ranging from $2,500 - "Friend" - for cocktail party and dinner, up to $100,000 - "Chair" - for "Leadership Reception for two, a premium table of ten, program recognition as Gala Chair and invitations to the Clinton Foundation Annual Briefing." The foundation's streamlined mission: "create economic opportunity, improve public health, and inspire civic engagement and service."

Hillary Clinton this morning will lead the first meeting of her Onward Together political group, on New York's Upper East Side. She and Howard Dean will welcome 11 partner organizations for a day of sessions "about harnessing the energy and activism post-election." In the afternoon, the groups have the chance to meet with 150 donors. Last year, OT had 33,000 donors and gave over $1 million to partner groups. The group says that figure will be higher for midterms this year.

President Clinton publishes a novel on June 4, co-authored with thriller writer James Patterson, "The President Is Missing" (preorder link). The two will appear together at BookCon, a massive booksellers' convention, at the Javits Center in New York on June 3. Tickets are already sold out. Then the pair have a multi-city book tour in June — together and separately. An eight-part series comes to Showtime in 2019.

Chelsea Clinton is a prolific tweeter. She has been repeatedly critical of the campaign memoir by the N.Y. Times' Amy Chozick, "Chasing Hillary," shouting out to people who comment on the book: "Hi Ana Marie! ... Thank you Max ... Hi Dan! ... Hi Katy! ... Hi Jeet! ... Hi Amy! ... Hi @amychozick!"

https://www.axios.com/hillary-bill-chelsea-clinton-foundation-spring-7a4e50d5-8cc3-4e80-9a03-55f9588e5ee2.html

(more than the recommended 4 paragraphs, but this was so short I thought I'd post the entire thing - advise if I should truncate it)

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

1. Are you suggesting that Chelsea Clinton will decide to run for President?

Oh, dear lord I hope not.

If you're simply saying the three of them will all have a higher profile in coming months, that's entirely something else.

[SFnomad]

4. If Chelsea does, why not? Or are you letting Republicans make your choice for you? n/t

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

11. She has shown zero interest in running for office so far in her life.

If she wants to run for office she really ought to start a bit lower.

Not to mention family dynasties are not often a good thing in this country.

And if you're going to bring up Joseph Kennedy III, I'll point out that he has run for office already, and been elected. I have no idea if he's entertaining the idea of running for President some day, but at least he's laying the groundwork.

Chelsea Clinton? Not so much.

And just because I don't want some total neophyte running, does not meaning I'm letting Republicans make my choice for me. It means I'm looking carefully at who is running and what I want in a potential candidate.

[SFnomad]

57. Your current reply sounds much more reasonable than your first "Oh, dear lord I hope not" knee jerk

Your first comment is the kind of thing we hear from the typical anti-Clinton bunch, those that have been brainwashed by the Republicans. That's where my comment came from.

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

59. It's the knee-jerk

"OH YES! She's a Clinton, of course she should run!" That bothers me so much. Which I see far too much of here.

Remember what a disaster it was when Caroline Kennedy Schlossberg was somehow persuaded to run for the Senate when she had zero experience and qualifications? There are good reasons for people to start out at a lower level of elective politics than running for President.

Among the many reasons Trump is such a disaster in office is that he never ran for or held any other office, and he hasn't a clue what the norms of behavior are. That and the fact he's a narcissist bully. And not very bright.

[LanternWaste]

61. While I see far too much of the corollary

'"OH YES! She's a Clinton, of course she should run!" That bothers me so much. Which I see far too much of here...'

While I see far too much of the corollary: "Oh no! No more Clintons! Dynasties are unAmerican!!!" as well as other half-baked bumper-stickers to rationalize the bias under the pretense of experience (of which, can be found both positive as well as negative historical anecdotes-- but I can see why you allow for only one side of the coin).

[SFnomad]

63. I guess I spoke too soon ... the knee is jerking again, just like the post I originally replied to

Caroline Kennedy Schlossberg never ran for the Senate seat. When Senator Clinton was becoming Secretary Clinton under President Obama, Kennedy looked at filling the soon to be empty seat through an appointment. In less than two months, she withdrew herself from consideration ... I'm not sure how that can be described as such a "disaster". Up until that point, I knew little about her and she didn't have that much of a public life. She certainly wasn't prepared for what she was getting herself into and I would guess she realized this wasn't the good fit she thought it would be.

Now, comparing Chelsea Clinton to Caroline Kennedy is pretty ridiculous. Chelsea has been in the public eye and she knows firsthand what it takes. If she ever runs for an office, she will have the experience of growing up around her parents times in office and also being part of her mother's campaigns, both Senate and Presidential.

I rarely hear anyone say "of course she should run", but I do hear "if she does run, I would vote for her". What I also hear a lot of is the "oh God no" laments ... and all that does is help the Republicans, playing into decades of Clinton Derangement Syndrome.

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

64. Caroline Kennedy has been in the public eye all of her life.

And her attempt to run for the Senate seat was a straight up disaster. Did you see any of the interviews she did?

My essential point is that no one should start running for the top office, or even a top office the first time out. There's a lot to learn about campaigning, about how to meet the public, about how to think through the policies you'll champion and so on.

Oh, and I've run for office myself, so I do know some of what I'm taking about.

I will not automatically vote for someone who comes out of nowhere (even if she is that daughter of a President and Secretary of State) just because she chooses to run. I'll want to find out more about her, other than her family connection before I commit to vote for her.

Which is what I wish everyone else would do, rather than automatically saying, "If she does run I would vote for her."

I also think that people who'd love to see her run have not fully thought through the immense dislike a lot of people in this country have for the Clintons. That dislike may not be justified, but it's there. And quite frankly, I wouldn't want to see Chelsea go through half of what either of her parents went through.

[SFnomad]

67. As I explained once already Caroline Kennedy did not RUN for the Senate seat

she was looking at getting an appointment. The seat was up for re-election in 2 years. When she announced her intentions, I believe the seat was likely hers to lose just because of name recognition. I vaguely remember her interviews ... she wasn't prepared, they were not good. They ended her attempt at that appointment. Just because she was in the pubic eye doesn't mean she was prepared for the political pressure cooker ... it's clear she wasn't prepared for it.

"There's a lot to learn about campaigning, about how to meet the public, about how to think through the policies you'll champion and so on." - If after decades in her parent's shadow, Chelsea doesn't know how to do this by now, she never will.

"Oh, and I've run for office myself, so I do know some of what I'm taking about. " - argumentum ad verecundiam

"I also think that people who'd love to see her run have not fully thought through the immense dislike a lot of people in this country have for the Clintons." - I'm sorry to see that you're letting Republicans choose your candidates for you, too many so-called progressives and Democrats are right there with you on that.

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

68. Okay, so she didn't actually go out there and do retail campaigning, but

her attempt to get the appointment was a total failure. Her interviews were terrible. Nothing vague to remember about them. And somehow I think that having experience does matter, and I'm not just arguing from authority, but from experience. I have been in the trenches with campaigns more than once, and I think that matters at least a little.

Trust me, Republicans do not choose my candidates. I just don't automatically assume that someone with a family connection is qualified.

[onetexan]

17. I would love for Chelsea to run for office one day

but i get the feeling she's focused on raising her kids at the present. Would love for her to run, maybe start out at a House Rep position then progress to Senate.

[SFnomad]

58. Chelsea is more articulate than her mother, less charismatic than her father

When she was working as an operative / spokesperson during mother's campaign, she seemed to have a good grasp on the issues and I think she would make a fine political representative. I too don't think she has the desire for it, at least not now.

Of course, just because her name is Clinton, the RWNJs would go nuts over her ... and far too many progressives would help to knock her down, just because her name is Clinton.

[onetexan]

60. agree, she's clearly highly intelligent -

a product of good genes. Even though she doesn't have quite the charismatic charm her dad has, she's quite deliberate and polished in her delivery, has great grasp of the issues, and much better sense than any RW'ers. Moreover, her own life's work and her lack of baggage should make her a great candidate. Her surname and access to such highly accomplished, amazing parents shouldn't hinder her. That certainly didn't stop the Bush nor the Kennedy kids, did it?

Everyone is flawed, and if she is up front and sincere and brings that to her campaigning for office one day, i'd be the first to vote for her. The RW'ers and LW haters are always going to hate the Clintons. That in no way should stop her if she wants to run for future office.

[SFnomad]

62. +1 n/t

[mcar]

2. Love Chelsea on Twitter

She is such a classy, accomplished woman. I look forward to seeing them all on the campaign trail, helping to bring about the Blue Wave!

[Cha]

46. A couple of Chelsea Tweets regarding the Amy Chozick dustup..

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

[mcar]

50. I followed that whole mess

Chozick got caught flat footed in her lies. MSM types supported Chozick. Chelsea had her dead to rights. She handled the whole thing with Grace and class, as she always does.

[Cha]

51. I followed it, too.. on Ragnarok's

twitter feed. They were all on Team Chelsea.

Of course the m$m was on Chozick's side.. they helped get trump rigged in.

That's what really impresses me about Chelsea.. is the way she handle's it with such grace and dignity.

[yortsed snacilbuper]

3. I always liked Hillary.

Hope she helps out.

[erronis]

5. George II: Could you state your position on this posting?

Are you pro/con the Clintons and/or Chelsea?

I felt like this was an invitation for people to weigh in with their opinions.

What are yours?

[LakeArenal]

9. Why do we need to know an author's position?

Just a question for discussion. Choose to respond or not.

[erronis]

19. Really just curious. Usually when someone posts something

it is usually because it has some relevance to the poster.

Because this particular article could be interpreted in so many ways I was just looking for a perspective.

And I agree, anything/everything can be posted without a position. This would be a strange board if everything was without the poster's commentary.

[NastyRiffraff]

27. Satisfied now?

George II posted about his "position:" https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=10576931

Or does he also need to tell you how he feels about the Washington Nationals, the upcoming royal wedding, or Snickers bars?

[erronis]

31. Weird how you got involved in some unnecessary defense...

I was not questioning his post, just asking for his position on the post.

Since you replied subsequent to my response to George II, what is the point of your interjection?

Washington Nationals? WTF is with that?

Would you like to give us your screed about how to deal with subjects you don't understand?

[Kurt V.]

6. I'm looking forward to reading the Prez's novel!

[Honeycombe8]

7. I don't think it's a good idea to reflect backwards.

It's probably best if they not interfere with whoever will be running in the mid-terms.

It's probably not a good idea to make the 2016 election uppermost in people's minds. That was not a good time for anyone. It's time to project forward. A new age, a new time, new issues.

[mcar]

13. "If they not interfere?"

What do you mean? Do you really think the Clinton's, one of our most notable Democratic families, would "interfere" in the mid terms?

Me, I think having them campaigning will be a big help. I'd love to see HRC back in FL.

[Honeycombe8]

18. Maybe in selected states, but I think the Clinton name...

hearkens back to the past. Just like the Bush name does.

It's time to develop new messages and look forward.

That's my opinion. If the Clinton name doesn't hearken back in some states, then that would be fine. But mid-terms should not be about the Clintons or Bushes, IMO.

[japple]

24. How about Kennedy? What about Caroline Kennedy or Rep. Joe Kennedy?

What if Malia or Sasha ever decide to run for office. Michelle might decide to run, too.

[BlueWI]

48. The dynasty label hurt Ed Kennedy, IMO

The family history can help or hurt, depending on the public's view of the dynasty. The Bush and Clinton names are played out, I think. Republicans turned away from the Bush clan in 2016, Democrats kept Clinton close. The rest is history.

[brer cat]

8. Great to see this!

Hillary's Onward Together group has huge potential to get people more involved and run for office. I love that Howard Dean is also going to be involved. Their combined wisdom plus financial support from Onward Together can launch many new people into politics.

[calimary]

12. TOTALLY agree! I love Hillary. I still have faith in her. I think she still has many

contributions yet to make toward our efforts to take back the leadership of this country, rehabilitate and repair all the damage, and set it on the right course looking FORWARD into the future rather than yearning to turn time back to the VERY bad and backward "good ol' days."

[karynnj]

10. I think the really noteworthy thing here is that Onward Together had its first meeting

It is interesting that Howard Dean and Hillary Clinton were scheduled to lead the meeting with 11 organizations that have partnered with them. This is interesting because of the power, money, and organization they can bring to those groups -- not to mention, it is good for those organizations to meet.

I met Howard Dean in Burlington in 2014 -- it was interesting to listen to him speak with others in Burlington's Democratic party. What was clear is that the questions that engaged him the most wereones about elections and how to win them. Being chair of the DNC was likely the job that fit him like a glove and at which he excelled.

That does not, of course, mean that he was not - like Clinton herself - a policy expert. I would imagine that these two people - and the people they might bring with them - could essentially give a masters class on elections and policy to the activist organizations partnering with them. For those hoping that Clinton would - as much as anyone really can - move on from 2016 and help Democrats with lessons learned ... this may be doing exactly that.

So .... I think the article for speaking of that meeting, but hate that they wrote it as one thing in a list implying that this was the Clintons returning to the stage. They are, but this is not rehashing 2016 or the Clintons reclaiming a lead position in the party.

Everything else is really not politics - Chelsea Clinton tweets do not mean that she intends to run for the Senate or Presidency. The Clinton Foundation has done great work for more than a decade and has fund raisers. It is fascinating that Patterson and Clinton have choiced forces to write a novel.

[George II]

16. I agree with your last paragraph entirely - just because they are remaining in the public's eye....

....doesn't mean they have ulterior motives and are looking to stay in "politics" other than speaking out. They've been out there for 30+ years (not Chelsea) doing good things for people, and they've raised and distributed hundreds of millions of dollars for people all over the world who are in dire straits.

As for Chelsea, I doubt very much she wants to get out there in politics, she doesn't seem to have the driving personality that her parents have. She's got other things to do and can do a lot for people without having to put up with the rigors of running for office.

[Little Star]

14. Glad to hear about the new Clinton wave.........

I just pre-ordered President Clinton & James Patterson's new co-authored with thriller,"The President Is Missing". Can't wait to read it!

[loyalsister]

15. This is a gift to Trump

and his supporters. Trump's favorite deflection is to talk about Hillary. Giving him something to comment on is not going to be helpful.

[BannonsLiver]

20. Should they dig a hole in the ground and live like moles?

[kcr]

22. I think some would only be happy

If Hillary Clinton went to the Arctic circle and held a presser there before selecting a nice ice flow to set herself upon and kick off to announce her departure from the public sphere permanently. Nothing else would do.

[leftofcool]

21. Because they are Clinton's right?

I don't hear anyone saying that about Bernie.

[loyalsister]

28. Clinton hate is a hot button that gets the RW going

I'm just saying giving them something to talk about isn't helpful. Bernie is still a senator, and one who I think should be quietly doing his job rather than sticking his nose in primaries. I was disappointed when they both wrote books. I would be pleased if he retired and we heard nothing from either of them. We have elections this year and 2020 to think about soon after. But, primarily, there should be nothing overshadowing the serious coverage of the ongoing current investigation.

[m-lekktor]

33. It gets the left wing going as well. Especially after the last election.

Trust me.

[R B Garr]

43. And look what that got you. Trump.

How could anyone claim to be progressive and tolerate Trump. It’s absurd.

[loyalsister]

55. Not in my neck of the woods

MO has been trending redder during and after the Clinton yrs. Voters used to be more responsive to Democrats. Then republicans started picking up seats in the general assembly in the late 90s and beyond.

[TheSmarterDog]

23. This isn't for Trump & his supporters.

This is for the people that voted with the majority & those that DIDN'T see Trump as the lesser of two evils.

[loyalsister]

25. And yet

The anyone but Clinton, an those who rejected both will have their votes and non-votes justified and reinforced as anti--Clinton rhetoric distracts from Mueller's investigation and the failure of Trump's presidency. Every time he mentions he name or tweets about her people respond some with defensive outrage, others with relief she's not president, or lock her up chants.There are more important things to keep in the media forefront.

[TheSmarterDog]

30. And why should Democrats, liberals & progressives care

about what people who hate Democrats, liberals & progressives think? These are the people we should be fighting against, not cow-towing to.

[loyalsister]

32. It's not cowtowing to think about the future

Keeping the rhetoric and anger over the last election in the forefront is a mistake. If the players keep claiming a spot on the stage and sucking the oxygen out of the room. We have a present and a future to think about. An invitation to revive the 30 yr festering hate helps no one but Trump. And can be damaging to current Democratic candidates.

[Gothmog]

36. Trumpsters are deplorable and disgusting

Why should we care what they think. This board is for real Democrats who support the Democratic Party. I am happy to see the Clintons become more active and think that they can help

[loyalsister]

39. There's a huge difference between catering to them and getting them fired up

Motivating RWers to vote is not even close to enabling them. It simply sabatoges Democratic candidates. The last thing Claire McCaskill or any other red state candidate needs right now is to be asked about Hillary Clinton.

[TheSmarterDog]

40. You want to sideline some of our best & most popular leaders b/c the fascists whine about them.

That's all the more reason to put them front & center. What you're doing is buying into the RW spin.

THERE IS A REASON WHY THE FASCISTS HATE THEM! BECAUSE THEY ARE EFFECTIVE AT FIRING UP *OUR* PEOPLE & BLOCKING THE RW AGENDA!

If you really care about the future, you'll support having people like the Clintons making the rounds to sing the praises of our Democratic candidates.

[loyalsister]

41. I don't want to see a GOTV project for them

The Democrats in my area would rather GOP voters stay home. There are at least as many of them as there are Democrats. Claire McCaskill had to deal with answering questions about what Hillary said a couple of weeks ago. She's in a no win position everytime she's asked to comment about anything Clinton.

[TheSmarterDog]

44. If you let the fascists set the agenda, you've already lost.

THAT'S what we need to focus on: Getting people out front & center who can articulate the Democratic platform. The Clintons can do that & HAVE done that serving America for more that 30 yrs.

[BlueWI]

49. Agreed.

When Gore, Dukakis, Mondale, and Kerry lost presidential elections, I don't think there was much clamoring to have them continue as the public face of the party. This is after both Gore and Kerry, as I remember, won the popular vote, like Clinton did.

So what's different about Clinton? Why is there so much clamoring for her to stay prominently in the public eye? What makes her so different than these predecessors?

[elleng]

26. Yes.

[jalan48]

37. Yep. The Republicans will love this. Energize the base.

[R B Garr]

42. Seriously, this has been used for years about the Clintons.

It’s mostly a RW talking point. The Clintons should just go away. Bill C is a twice/elected President. Who would tell him to shut up and go away. It’s really an absurd talking point about them.

[loyalsister]

45. Last month McCaskill really did have to distance herself from Hillary

And, the GOP lied and said she didn't. People who don't live in red States don't get that not everyone is a Clinton loyalist. And, not all people who refused to vote for Hillary are republicans. Start talking about Obama or Clinton and they tune out. They are more willing to listen when they hear about current candidates.
We really need to hold on to the Senate seats we have. If the GOP has nothing to be excited about on the ballot, the Dems in red States are less likely to have to capitulate and compromise their values. I would rather they not be highly motivated.

[R B Garr]

54. Obama too? How many Democratic Presidents can you

ignore or tell to stifle. So it’s really not about the Clintons per se.

But ironically, this makes the argument that the Sanders one-size-fits-all message doesnt and won’t work everywhere.

[loyalsister]

56. Politics is local

National standard barers who are particularly polarizing are not helpful to us. There are places that might respond well to all three. But in MO neither Obama, Clinton, nor Bernie do us any favors by pushing a mesrsage local Democrats have to fight against.

[nini]

47. This is such bullshit

The Clintons don't have to shut the fuck up because a bunch of morons don't like them. The ones that will talk about her are doing it already and haven't stopped.

[Me.]

34. KR

[Gothmog]

35. This is great news

The Clintons have a great deal to contribute to the Democratic Party

[ismnotwasm]

38. Yay!!

J&R

[democratisphere]

52. Look forward to seeing all the Clintons fighting to rid US of the entire GOP.

[Codeine]

53. Good. And all the folks at JackpineRadicals

can suck on that!

[Blue_true]

65. Could they just be civic minded?

Bill Clinton has had a post Presidency of activism. I would guess Hillary is seeing things happening to the less fortunate and want to blunt their negative impacts. My sense about Chelsea is that she will go to the mat at anytime to defend/protect her parents and she has a large social conscience, but I don't see her being interested in elected office.

[NCTraveler]

66. They have good genes.

The best.

[oasis]

69. "Onward Together".

Works for me.