General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: BREAKING: Elizabeth Warren supports Hillary for President [View all]NYC Liberal
(20,135 posts)We needed him in the Senate. A liberal's liberal who could also work with others; who knew how to compromise without "caving" to get things done.
Barring another Obama popping up within the next year or so, the nomination really is hers to lose. She is the most vetted candidate out there, bar none. Any dirt on her already came out a long time ago; between the primaries with Obama in 2008 and 20 years of being in the right-wing's crosshairs, there's nothing left hidden. Anything remotely scandalous would have been uncovered by now.
Her tenure as Secretary of State has all but cemented the nomination for her, if she runs. It's an essentially non-political office (compared to, say, senator or VP), where she did a great job. Republicans will scream Benghazi but, again, that's already been played out. Romney spent the entire last 2 months of the campaign last year trying to make it an issue, with no success. The RWNJs in Congress tried to make hay with their hearings and what came of it? Nothing.
Nothing in politics is certain. At all. But if she runs, HRC will be a formidable candidate. And if she gets the nomination she will have the support of two popular presidents, Obama and Bill. Republicans have no "elder statesmen" to back whatever nutjob they pick. Poppy is the closest, I suppose, but he isn't doing any campaigning at his age with his health. And Shrub...well, the GOP would drug him and lock him in the janitor's closet before they'd let him show his face at a campaign event with their candidate.