There's a lot of speculation about Hillary in 2016. It's the type of thing I tend to ignore-it was even going strong during the 2012 election: hello?! Can we just win one election before worrying about the next one?
Even with 2012 over I still don't find 2016 talk very compelling. After all, so many things will change and there are just so many contingencies that what use can such speculation possibly have? When I first heard all the Hillary talk I was skeptical. Part of it is that this is the Democratic party . We don't usually pick losers-not that I mean she's a loser, I think she's a real winner, but what I mean is she did lose the primary in 2008.
Usually that's the end of it. How many Democrats get a second chance? The Republican party is the party of Wait your turn. Of course that doesn't always serve them as they probably wish they had skipped Romney's. However, that's always been the conventional wisdom in the Democratic party.
Maybe in her case it's different. Understand, again: I love Hillary, I'm a Hillary man, in fact I supporter her not Obama in 2008-and if you know anything about me at all, you know I love the President. I mean will do anything to help him and his Presidency succeed. But I always loved Hillary from 1992. While she took a lot of flack for her Tammy Wynette comment, I appreciated it-I'm a Renaissance guy.
Still, she will be 68 in 2016 and I figured maybe at this point she doesn't even want the job anymore. However, there seems to be more and more speculation that she is running. Laurence O'Donnell says she's "absolutely running" and I consider O'Donnell about as credible source on this type of thing as there is out there.
So if she runs she has my vote. Yet what if Andrew Cuomo runs? He seems a little more obvious to me. I still can't get past the "loser" syndrome and the fact that she's 68. But more power to her and I would love it if I could finally vote for her in a general election.
Truth is, there are more than enough qualified Democrats to run for President whoever is nominated. What I want to hear about is Ashley Judd for Kentucky Senate. A lot of people don't get the basis of her candidacy: after all, what are her qualifiactions?
My answer to that is I don't know. At least she knows about the Senate. LOL. However, the case for Ashley Judd for Senate is very simple actually: She's not Mitch McConnell; vote for her and we're rid of Mitch McConnell. Need I say more?
As it happens she does have some knowledge of politics and Rand Paul declares her "way too liberal." This from the man who thinks that the Voting Rights Act is unconstitutional.
We need someone to run against him and why not Ashley? One real asset is that she's a celebrity and an actress. People know who she is. Name recognition is a very great deal in politics. More people probably know who she is than Mitch McConnell-nationally; perhaps not in Kentucky, though she's well known there as well: she is a native.
The biggest reason George W. Bush was elected may be his name. At least it was the driving reason for his early soar to the top of the Republican primary in 1999. When they were polled people rated him very highly. However, a follow up question revealed that many people actually thought George Herbert Walker Bush was running again.
Look at who else has been elected in recent years. Arnold Schwarznegger, Sony Bono, Jesse Ventura and Al Franken.
No comments:
Post a Comment