Pages

Monday, April 13, 2015

First Thing to Understand about Hillary Campaign: This is not 2008

     Often humans tend to fight that last war. There is a human tendency to assume that the future will be like the present or distant past. No doubt, in some ways this hurt Hillary herself in 2008 as she ran her campaign in some ways too much as if it were 1992 when her husband first won. 

     Ok, I can't help myself, I will digress. You got to understand that I've loved the Clintons-both her and her husband-for a long time. One of the particularly vile charges that that vast Right wing Junta, Hillary talked about in the 90s made was that she and Bill never loved each other that they were just using each other for mutual convenience, etc. 

     I mean of all the vile things-to accuse someone of not loving his wife. This was part of the tiresome narrative we kept hearing from the Right about how the Clintons are a product of a selfish baby boomer generation who had turned their backs on traditional values and the tried and true knowledge of the older generations. 

     Yet, what I've come to realize is the truth is the opposite. It's not that the Clintons' marriage is a loveless sham used just for their naked ambition, but rather that in a way they have a much more meaningful and intimate marriage than is typical. 

     Let's face it, so many marriages have virtually nonexistent foundations after the first initial lust and infatuation runs it's course. Most male politicians like Bill Clinton have a woman at home who doesn't share his political ambition or idealism and their marriage often will not be able to stand what she sees as him putting his career over her and the family. 

    Bill and Hillary Clinton are linked by something so much deeper: a shared ambition and a shared idealism. In many ways, I'd argue that they-and from what I can tell-their daughter are a lot closer than most of the alleged traditional marriages. 

   Ok, a lot of folks are worried because they fear that Hillary is going to implode like she did in 2008. as they are fighting the last war-2008. However, as Josh Marshall points out, 2016 could not be more different:

   "It's true that Hillary seemed unassailable in 2008 too. But the situations are not comparable. As prohibitive as she seemed, Clinton had a number of quite realistic challengers. John Edwards was a former Senator who had been the vice presidential nominee four years earlier. The self destruction that would end his public career was as yet unknown. Barack Obama was only four years into his first term in the Senate. But he was already a star in the Democratic party after his 2004 convention speech. And as we noted a few days ago, Barack Obama is the exception not the rule. Even beyond these two Joe Biden and Chris Dodd were sitting senators and plausible candidates. There's nothing and no one comparable today. The Iraq War, on which she had taken a vote at odds with the impassioned views of many Democrats, is still out there as a challenge for her. But it was far more salient in 2008 than it is now."

    http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/the-hillary-primary

    It's going to happen as sure as Manny Pacquiao against Floyd Mayweather is going to happen: Hillary Clinton vs. Jeb Bush. I say the Bush name is much more radioactive than the GOP will want to admit. While they will run against Hillary as another Obama term, Bush will be easy to be seen as his brother's third term. Given a choice between Obama and W the public will easily take Obama. The polling currently seems to be consistent with this as she has a strong lead against Jeb. 

   More on why 2016 is not 2008

   http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/04/12/us-usa-election-clinton-idUSKBN0N305B20150412

No comments:

Post a Comment