Right now it seems Hillary is a shoo-in, but you know what they say: the best laid plans of mice and men. She was a shoo-in in 2008 as well, but as you might remember, a funny thing happened on the way to Inevitability Mountain.
I make the suggestion of a Hillary-Warren ticket as a friend. I am, always have been, and always will be a Hillary man. I was disappointed when she came up short in 2008, though of course, I came to like President Obama-to say the least. To like him at least as much as Chris Matthews did back in that 2008 campaign trail.
As this point, I want to believe that Hillary 2016 can be a reality. I mean, c'mon, the woman has just earned it by now. I mean in the 90s all the humiliation of the scandals of her husbands infidelities. Then her disappointment in 2008. She's been a good, loyal foot solider for President Obama and the Dems since.
Don't get me wrong she needs to be as the one thing that could lead me to be disillusioned by her-and I never have been in 20 years-is if she at any point took pains to distance herself from the President at any time in the coming campaign.
I assume she's running. The case to make for her Presidency is easy enough. Just to piss off Rush Limbaugh and friends is enough. When you recall how hard they went after the Clintons in the 90s how relentless their desire to destroy the First Family, well wouldn't it just be too much if they were subjected to another 8 years of a Clinton-after 8 years of Obama? Who knows maybe 20 years another Clinton-maybe by 2036 Chelsea is ready to run?
There was a great late night joke about Chelsea's new daughter where the newborn Clinton immediately gave a statement to the press that she can neither confirm or deny a plan to run for the President in 2056.
So why Warren? Well, to make sure there isn't another funny thing on the way to Inevitability Mountain it seems to me Warren is the best insurance as she is the most likely thing I can imagine to undo Hillary. I mean you see that far Lefties are already whining about Hilary she's not Left wing enough and Warren is their Great White Hope as the case may be so why not just put the two ladies together? That would forestall the worry that a Hillary White House won't be liberal enough.
What could be a fly in the ointment? If for some reason one or both of these power chicks don't want the matchup. It's possible that Hillary might find Warren too liberal for her-let's hope not.
Interestingly, I'm not the first to propose this, though I hadn't read this before coming up with the idea-Krugman already has proposed it. Of course, I'll take the company all day long.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/22/hillary-clinton-elizabeth-warren_n_6030868.html
Krugman actually goes on to say the chances of this are pretty remote. For one thing, Warren will want to go where she can have largest effect and that may be the Senate for now. I just hope the won't run against each other. I say this as someone who cares first and foremost about the Democratic party. If you've seen my Twitter page you should understand why. I care about the party. This is something that too many so-called Dems don't care about. I mean they just use the party. They just want a candidate that pushes their pet issue be it the environment, financial reform, or immigration reform but what about the party? I mean I think that all of these are important but someone has to look out for the party so that the most amount of these items can be achieved.
For me the goal is not necessarily the most liberal candidate, though probably I would usually agree that I want the most liberal candidate that can win. I doubt she's as Right wing as she's imagined to be by the firebagger crowd. I mean she is a politician and knows how to adapt which people forget. I mean she was more conservative in the past based on the electorate she and her husband had faced in the past. As Krugman points out, she's been more liberal during the current run up to her next presumed run.
The irony is that if all the presumption of Hillary 2016 turns out correct, it would mean that we've now gone full circle in Presidential politics where the Dems are now like the GOP is supposed to be-the Repubs are supposed to be the ones where it's all waiting your turn, whereas with the Dems it;s always a free for all. This time could be the opposite.
P.S. So while a Hillary-Warren ticket may be unlikely, it really would be a pretty powerful ticket I think. Both more liberal and more centrist Dems would have someone they could throw themselves behind, and we'd have the ultimate balanced ticket with not one but too females. It may not be in the cards but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be.
P.S.S. I do think that's the problem with the Dems-too many individual Dems care nothing about the party itself seeing it as just a vehicle. Yet, it's absurd to run with a party then throw this party under the bus as all those Blue Dog Dems discovered a few weeks ago to their sorrow.
UPDATE:
P.S.S.S. I remember in the early 90s with the rise of the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) there was a lot of talk about how the Caucus system is detrimental to the Democrats. There's some truth in this but what needs to be understood is that the Democrats have had this kind of problem throughout their long history-they remain the world's oldest party.
I mean, traditionally, the Dems have never actually been a party but rather two or three parties in one. Right to its first days you had the Northern Dems and the Southern Dems. The Democrats always had a liberal tendency, but the need to placate the Southern Dems was a problem from the start. Ironically, it may be now with the eclipse of the Southern Democrats-the Solid Democratic South is now the Solid Republican South-the Dems now have a better chance of finding a more unified voice and direction. There will be disparate interests, but it will be a more liberal party and that's a good thing. There is a large sense in which previous Democratic majorities in the House and Senate were misleading with all the Blue Dog Dems. With them gone the party may for now at least be smaller, but party discipline will be easier to achieve.
I make the suggestion of a Hillary-Warren ticket as a friend. I am, always have been, and always will be a Hillary man. I was disappointed when she came up short in 2008, though of course, I came to like President Obama-to say the least. To like him at least as much as Chris Matthews did back in that 2008 campaign trail.
As this point, I want to believe that Hillary 2016 can be a reality. I mean, c'mon, the woman has just earned it by now. I mean in the 90s all the humiliation of the scandals of her husbands infidelities. Then her disappointment in 2008. She's been a good, loyal foot solider for President Obama and the Dems since.
Don't get me wrong she needs to be as the one thing that could lead me to be disillusioned by her-and I never have been in 20 years-is if she at any point took pains to distance herself from the President at any time in the coming campaign.
I assume she's running. The case to make for her Presidency is easy enough. Just to piss off Rush Limbaugh and friends is enough. When you recall how hard they went after the Clintons in the 90s how relentless their desire to destroy the First Family, well wouldn't it just be too much if they were subjected to another 8 years of a Clinton-after 8 years of Obama? Who knows maybe 20 years another Clinton-maybe by 2036 Chelsea is ready to run?
There was a great late night joke about Chelsea's new daughter where the newborn Clinton immediately gave a statement to the press that she can neither confirm or deny a plan to run for the President in 2056.
So why Warren? Well, to make sure there isn't another funny thing on the way to Inevitability Mountain it seems to me Warren is the best insurance as she is the most likely thing I can imagine to undo Hillary. I mean you see that far Lefties are already whining about Hilary she's not Left wing enough and Warren is their Great White Hope as the case may be so why not just put the two ladies together? That would forestall the worry that a Hillary White House won't be liberal enough.
What could be a fly in the ointment? If for some reason one or both of these power chicks don't want the matchup. It's possible that Hillary might find Warren too liberal for her-let's hope not.
Interestingly, I'm not the first to propose this, though I hadn't read this before coming up with the idea-Krugman already has proposed it. Of course, I'll take the company all day long.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/22/hillary-clinton-elizabeth-warren_n_6030868.html
Krugman actually goes on to say the chances of this are pretty remote. For one thing, Warren will want to go where she can have largest effect and that may be the Senate for now. I just hope the won't run against each other. I say this as someone who cares first and foremost about the Democratic party. If you've seen my Twitter page you should understand why. I care about the party. This is something that too many so-called Dems don't care about. I mean they just use the party. They just want a candidate that pushes their pet issue be it the environment, financial reform, or immigration reform but what about the party? I mean I think that all of these are important but someone has to look out for the party so that the most amount of these items can be achieved.
For me the goal is not necessarily the most liberal candidate, though probably I would usually agree that I want the most liberal candidate that can win. I doubt she's as Right wing as she's imagined to be by the firebagger crowd. I mean she is a politician and knows how to adapt which people forget. I mean she was more conservative in the past based on the electorate she and her husband had faced in the past. As Krugman points out, she's been more liberal during the current run up to her next presumed run.
The irony is that if all the presumption of Hillary 2016 turns out correct, it would mean that we've now gone full circle in Presidential politics where the Dems are now like the GOP is supposed to be-the Repubs are supposed to be the ones where it's all waiting your turn, whereas with the Dems it;s always a free for all. This time could be the opposite.
P.S. So while a Hillary-Warren ticket may be unlikely, it really would be a pretty powerful ticket I think. Both more liberal and more centrist Dems would have someone they could throw themselves behind, and we'd have the ultimate balanced ticket with not one but too females. It may not be in the cards but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be.
P.S.S. I do think that's the problem with the Dems-too many individual Dems care nothing about the party itself seeing it as just a vehicle. Yet, it's absurd to run with a party then throw this party under the bus as all those Blue Dog Dems discovered a few weeks ago to their sorrow.
UPDATE:
P.S.S.S. I remember in the early 90s with the rise of the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) there was a lot of talk about how the Caucus system is detrimental to the Democrats. There's some truth in this but what needs to be understood is that the Democrats have had this kind of problem throughout their long history-they remain the world's oldest party.
I mean, traditionally, the Dems have never actually been a party but rather two or three parties in one. Right to its first days you had the Northern Dems and the Southern Dems. The Democrats always had a liberal tendency, but the need to placate the Southern Dems was a problem from the start. Ironically, it may be now with the eclipse of the Southern Democrats-the Solid Democratic South is now the Solid Republican South-the Dems now have a better chance of finding a more unified voice and direction. There will be disparate interests, but it will be a more liberal party and that's a good thing. There is a large sense in which previous Democratic majorities in the House and Senate were misleading with all the Blue Dog Dems. With them gone the party may for now at least be smaller, but party discipline will be easier to achieve.
No comments:
Post a Comment