The Nation: Hillary Clinton: It’s Not Her Turn

[marmar]

Hillary Clinton: It’s Not Her Turn
It’s hard to imagine a Democrat of national stature more ill-equipped to speak to the populist mood than HRC.

Richard Kim October 2, 2013 |


Because there are only 824 days to go before the 2016 Iowa caucus, it’s time to start thinking about who should win the Democratic Party’s nomination—Hillary or Not Hillary? Before you roll your eyes and turn the page, allow me to note that all the talk about the next, next national election isn’t just the idle chatter of bored, twitchy journalists. The world may still be waiting for that white plume of smoke to rise above Chappaqua, but Clinton’s supporters are not. They’ve already started a Ready for Hillary PAC, which has raised over a million dollars in its first six months and secured the services of two key former Obama campaigners, Jeremy Bird and Organizing for America director Mitch Stewart. EMILY’s List has launched the Madam President project, which coyly pretends to agitate for a woman president, but which recently hosted town halls in Iowa and New Hampshire that became de facto Clinton rallies. “Go to the Ready for Hillary website!” urged former Michigan governor Jennifer Granholm in Manchester. And a slew of prominent women—from minority leader Nancy Pelosi to Missouri Senator Claire McCaskill to Vogue editor Anna Wintour—have pre-emptively pledged their allegiance to HRC. All of which produces the impression that Clinton’s nomination is more than just a likely outcome; it’s an inexorable ascension. As Donna Brazile put it, “If Hillary Clinton gets in the race, there will be a coronation of her.”

Can we please hold the crown for at least another day? Or 824 of them? I’m totally behind the idea of electing a woman president in 2016, and I also understand the wellspring of buyer’s remorse that attaches to Obama’s oft-dispiriting presidency. But anointing Clinton now isn’t just anti-democratic; it paints a big sign on the party’s door: No New Ideas Here.

Here’s how I see it: America has a lot of problems, the most acute of which is the yawning gap between the rich and everyone else. According to Berkeley economist Emmanuel Saez, the top 1 percent captured 95 percent of all income gains in the so-called recovery, while the bottom 99 percent barely gained at all. And the chances of anyone breaking into that uppermost echelon are dwindling. As a slew of recent studies have shown, America has less class mobility than it used to and less than Canada or Western Europe; an American child born in the lowest quintile has just a 6 percent chance of rising to the top quintile—42 percent will stay at the bottom.

These grim data are more than just an abstraction; they are, as Peter Beinart argues in a Daily Beast article on “The Rise of the New New Left,” the defining condition of the millennial generation, who face scarcer job prospects, lower wages, fewer benefits and a weaker social safety net than those before them. All that anger and discontent that boiled up at Occupy Wall Street two years ago wasn’t swept away with the encampments. It’s simmering, waiting, and even if elections aren’t always the conduit for youth insurrections, it’s hard to see a whole cohort sitting the next big one out as the American dream crumbles around them. .....................(more)

The complete piece is at: http://www.thenation.com/article/176473/hillary-clinton-its-not-her-turn#sthash.nnYfGmCz.dpuf

[Jefferson23]

1. If she gets in the race there will be a coronation of her? I should not have read this OP

this morning.

[djean111]

2. But anointing Clinton now isn’t just anti-democratic; it paints a big sign on the party’s door: No

New Ideas Here.
Yup.
As a liberal woman, I want to vote for a liberal woman. That is not Hillary.

[truebluegreen]

4. +100

[Ikonoklast]

11. The party is moving left, and trending younger.

It won't look to the elders established on the right of the party for any new ideas or leadership.

It amuses me to see those who excoriate the current president for being too far right and corporatist think Clinton will suddenly turn to the left and be a populist.

[RC]

31. I don't get that either.

Hillary is a little to the Right of Obama. There are also some here that think Obama is a Liberal. I can't wrap my head around where they think Hillary would be.

[Mojorabbit]

35. I agree but still, I think she would win handily. nt

[Ikonoklast]

36. Anecdote, not Data: None of my three children would vote for her, nor their signifcant others.

All of them right around thirty years old.


They did not even consider Clinton in the last primary.

They have no loyalty to any political dynasty.

[Mojorabbit]

37. I have one too

I know six right wing women who would vote for her in a heartbeat. This came out at a party recently. My own right wing sister wrote her in in the last Presidential election. She might not get the youth vote but I think she would get a lot of women from the other side. On edit, she is too far to the right for my taste and would not be my first choice.

[Ikonoklast]

38. There were lots of Republican women who wanted Hillary, PUMA's all were on the Right.

They saw one her as one of their own.

[AtomicKitten]

40. agreed, that is pretty funny

It amuses me to see those who excoriate the current president for being too far right and corporatist think Clinton will suddenly turn to the left and be a populist.

[davidpdx]

44. I agree

Which is why I hope Clinton and Biden won't run. I am pretty sure Warren won't run either.

If that happens there will be a huge opening for new candidates to get in the race.

[Ikonoklast]

48. Martin O'Malley.

I am keeping my fingers crossed.

[sabrina 1]

20. I agree. It's time to start electing people who are not the first choice of

Big Money. Instead of boasting about all the big money a candidate is getting already, it should be held against them, on all sides.

The very fact that there are already wealthy contributers on board with Hillary is enough to show she is not the one.

It is up to the people not to be blinded by the big money campaigns and to choose for themselves who they want to represent them.

[RC]

33. You want people to think before they vote?

What next, study up on the positions of the candidates on the various issues? That sounds like a lot of work, when blindly voting for any (D) is good enough, according to way too many here on DU.

[Ikonoklast]

34. Campaign Finance Reform would change this nation.

[Roland99]

22. Hear! Hear!

[arely staircase]

25. there is no annointing

there is a primary process she will have to win.

and she probably will and then win the presidency as well. being extremely popular (enough to win the nomination in a landslide) does not equal anointing, it just equals winning big.

[JNelson6563]

3. Wouldn't it be funny

if she didn't even run? I would laugh for days.

Julie

[djean111]

6. This is the time when she and her supporters are testing the waters.

So, if there is enough negativity out there for her run at a presidency, then it wouldn't be "funny", it would be logical if she did not even run.

[JNelson6563]

10. Oh I still think it'd be hilarious.

In a sad sort of way, of course.

All manner of resources being sucked into the Hillary thing.

If all those so busily working for/against Hillary would apply all that time/effort/money to taking the House, holding Senate and taking some states back from complete GOP domination, well we'd be more certain of victories on all counts wouldn't we?

The only thing that would actually make it funny would how stupid they'd all look (especially those investing countless hours arguing on the tubes) if nothing came of it (meaning she didn't run).

Here in GOP controlled MI all I think about election-wise is next year.

Julie

[djean111]

13. Then it is just as hilarious that there is already a million dollar PAC and Emily's List out

there, working for her candidacy. Maybe the thing to do would be to stop pushing Hillary until after the 2014 elections and let us all concentrate on 2014. I believe there are as many people and groups working FOR her than working against her.
Against her? Any time a support brings her name up here at DU as inevitable, they get pushback. No one has organised an Emily's More Liberal Cousin group, as far as I know.
Stop pushing her, stop getting the push back.
And while you are laughing, some of us will be breathing a sigh of relief.

[JNelson6563]

17. I'd be pretty relieved too.

Not only am I not interested in thinking about 2016, I'm also not interested in Hillary 2016 either.

Tho' I must confess, when I see stories about/clips of Elizabeth Warren I always think, damn she'd make a great President. Maybe one day...

And then *poof* back to the here & now and the task at hand.

Julie

[magical thyme]

7. I would breathe a sigh of relief.

She was my 2nd to last choice in '08. She would likely be my last choice in '16.

I'd like to see a woman in the white house, but I'd like it to be a woman who is not an armchair warhawk and who is not a corporatist.

[adirondacker]

47. I would prefer her over Andrew Cuomo who is very likely to run if she doesn't.

I agree with your last statement though.

[Zorra]

5. Yeh, super rich Third Way white folks simply won't make the most appealing Democratic Presidential

candidates in the eyes of a rapidly growing minority base and a general 99% that is sick to death of plutarchs.

[arely staircase]

26. do you have any idea how popular she is among the democratic base (regular primary voters)

especially minorities?

I will give you a hint

very

[coldmountain]

27. My whole 20+ extended family will go door to door for Hillary

It's time for a woman president and Elizabeth Warren won't run and couldn't win anyhow

[arely staircase]

28. After we elect Wendy Davis governor

we will turn our attention to electing HC POTUS.

[LuvNewcastle]

8. It's going to be tempting for a lot of Democrats to choose her.

She'll have a very good chance at beating whoever the Republicans throw at her. But if she's the nominee, the election is already lost, as far as I'm concerned. Hillary Clinton pays lip service to a lot of Democratic ideals, but she doesn't truly stand for anything. What have we gained by getting someone like that elected?

One of the most common complaints I've heard from voters about Democrats through the years is that they don't really stand for anything. Americans would rather elect someone who stands for the wrong things than someone who stands for nothing. Regardless of how his presidency has turned out, Obama did stand for certain issues while he was running and he won by solid majorities both times. Democrats need to remember that.

[Whisp]

29. ''but she doesn't truly stand for anything.''

This is true. She stands for whatever is safe and most likely believable at the moment, depending on people's amnesia.

What rankles me the most about her 'pretty speeches' is her so called devotion to human rights and women and children. She wasn't thinking about the Iraqi women and children when she voted for that war or when her husband killed so many of them during his reign.

Can't stand that hypocrisy. Makes me tear blood out of my eyes.

[DURHAM D]

9. If Hillary doesn't run the next President will be Rand Paul

because of all that "boiling anger" of the millennial generation and independents. They see Rand as anti-establishment and pissed like they are so he will get their vote. It doesn't matter what he stands for, what matters is that he is angry too.

[Ikonoklast]

12. Rand Paul? Never happen.

Millennials bitch and moan and stay home, just to show everyone how much they care.

[DURHAM D]

14. They will vote.

I have named it the upcoming Libertarian Spring.

[Ikonoklast]

16. They haven't yet.

They are too busy being disaffected.

[starroute]

21. Only if the GOP decides to support same-sex marriage, legal pot, and abortion

And can you really see their base of aging white males letting them get away with that?

In the short run -- which is to say, 2016 -- I can see some chance of the GOP being split between libertarians and dyed-in-the-wool Tea Partiers.

But in the long run, the Millennials are so badly screwed that I can't see a majority of them sticking with a philosophy of "you're on your own so suck it up and stop bitching." Even those that aren't enamored of big government may be more likely to turn to some variety of left-libertarianism than to the right-anarchism of Ron Paul.

[LuvNewcastle]

15. Quit trying to scare people with Rand Paul.

We don't need Hillary as the antidote to Rand Paul. That slimy bastard won't even be able to win the nomination of his party.

[djean111]

18. That's a natural progression (excuse the verb!) from saying "But ROMNEY! PALIN! MCCAIN!"

whenever someone criticizes any of Obama's policies.

[hughee99]

23. So your theory is that people will vote for the most anti-establishment candidate,

unless the most establishment candidate runs? I don't buy it. I don't think Clinton or Paul will win in '16.

[polichick]

24. That's the choice - Rand or HRC? Silly.

[Comrade Grumpy]

32. Why would Hillary attract millennials, independents, and anti-establishment types?

She is all that is old and establishment.

[DURHAM D]

42. She won't but

she will turn out AAs plus seniors and women of all stripes; Independents, moderate Republicans and Democrats. Greater percentages of women and seniors always vote anyway. Unfortunately younger people (and white males) are excited about Rand and the only Democrat with a chance of beating him is Hillary. I would like for her running mate to be Kamala Harris.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

39. Governor Martin O'Malley. Maryland is at pre-recession employment levels...

and is going to kick ass under the ACA. What's the conventional wisdom as to what Millennials care about? Jobs, weed and marriage equality? Maryland has jobs, marriage equality, and (at least) medical marijuana.

O’Malley signs death penalty repeal, medical marijuana bill and other measures
http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-05-02/local/38969834_1_penalty-capital-punishment-new-law

I haven't kept up with him all that much, but he comes across as an UNapologetic Democrat.

[JaneyVee]

19. Trumka/Krugman

[LuvLoogie]

30. Clinton Bad; Warren Good

Blah, blah blah blah blah blah...

Okay. Got it.

[joshcryer]

41. And unsurprisingly the better candidate isn't proffered.

This is what scares me the most. It's going to be Clinton.

[craigmatic]

43. She's still going to run. If not it's Joe's turn.

[liberalhistorian]

45. I'm sorry, but I gave up on the Nation

quite awhile ago. It is always negative, always critical, never satisfied with anything, always demanding complete and total fealty to their every single belief with an "our way or the highway" attitude or the candidate/politician would get the "conformist", "corporatist", "centrist", "RW hack", etc., etc., labels thrown on them; no sense of the realities of politics and what is actually possible, always tearing down and criticizing rather than trying to come up with actual, positive ways to change things and make the differences that they say they want. I could go on and on.

They are, as usual, wrong about HRC. She is far more in touch with real politics and the public mood than they are, again as usual. And their ridiculous, overwrought hand-wringing over an alleged "coronation" of her and other similar stupid wacko nonsense is equally annoyuing and just shows that I'm not missing much at all by having given them up.

[Oilwellian]

46. Yes, as an example...

that she's so in touch with the American people, one need only look at the latest trade agreement she helped author. It's a Partnership in every way.