Hillary Clinton Will be the Nominee: Get Over it

     Hillary Derangement Syndrome is really hitting a snag here because many are just offended at the prospect of her running basically unopposed here. 

     "It’s widely claimed that the lack of any serious primary challenge to Clinton is rooted in the lack of any Democratic “bench” of possible candidates. Jonathan Bernstein has a nice piece debunking this idea, noting that, in fact, there are many credible candidates who have decided not to run because many party actors have already coalesced behind Clinton:

There’s Martin O’Malley, the former Maryland governor, who is actually running. And Elizabeth Warren. And Andrew Cuomo, Al Franken, Tim Kaine, Amy Klobuchar and Mark Warner. Oh, and Michael Bennet, Mike Beebe, Christine Gregoire, Maggie Hassan, Jeanne Shaheen, Sherrod Brown, Kirsten Gillibrand, John Hickenlooper and Deval Patrick. They don’t seem presidential?…Had Clinton chosen not to run, plenty of the others would have jumped in, and the field would have been comparable to what the Republicans have put together.

    "Maybe a few of them should reconsider!"

     http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2015/03/12/morning-plum-senate-battle-over-loretta-lynch-will-make-history/

     There's a saw among some liberals that she's just not liberal enough and they base this mostly on the rather sexist assumption that she will simply be her husband's third term. 

    This is kind of sexist and ignores the fact that even he's not as conservative now as he was then-or did they miss his fullthroated endorsement of Obama in 2012?

     Ideally, I agree, it's better if we can avoid the race much less the gender card as much as possible. Unfortunately, when you're talking about Hillary Clinton, it's just not so possible. What we learned in 2008 is people feel much more comfortable making sexist comments about a female Presidential candidate than racist comments about a African American Presidential candidate-and anyone who knows me at all, knows there is no louder, prouder, supporter of President Obama than me. 

    But you had Obama supporters justifying their vote by saying that woman may lack the necessary skills for being President-no one would every be as blatant on racial grounds today. 

   Look, Sargent's point is well-taken that there are other candidates. However, I think the Democratic party has decided for itself that we want Hillary. I do think it's her turn and if anything I find the unity among Dems on her as a welcome change. Why do we want a huge fractious primary? 

  What Sargent seems to forget is that nobody thinks that having a huge primary with lots and lots of candidates helped the GOP in 2016. 

  The Dems are famous for tearing themselves apart. Why can't we let the GOP have the fun this time?

   As for his argument that by having her run more or less unopposed makes her the victim of endless media hits-as the media somehow wants to make sure she doesn't really run unopposed-I don't know that I buy it. After all, incumbent Presidents are always in the same position of running unopposed and this is usually felt to be an advantage rather than a bad thing. 

  Sometimes the party decides early and it has now.  Sargent himself says:

  "The New York Times talks to a number of senior Democratic officials and donors and finds that many of them see Hillary Clinton as by far the best chance not only to keep the White House, but also to reinvigorate the party’s efforts down the ticket. The two main reasons: Clinton has a broad demographic appeal that could help lift Dem chances in even the most marginal House districts — perhaps putting the Lower Chamber back in play (doubtful, but still) — and help reverse Dem losses on the state level. And Clinton can appeal to big and small donors; liberal activists and Wall Street givers alike."

    Again, if you love divisive primaries we've had lots of them over the years-we had Obama vs. Hillary in 2008, not even talking about 1968. If the party is unified behind one candidate I say that's a good thing. As for Much Ado About Email, if alleged liberals like Sargent and Paul Waldman would stop saying there remain important, unanswered questions about it, maybe this silly obsession over her email could get a decent burial.