Hillary in 2016? Seriously?

Tuesday, April 3rd, 2012 · 40 Comments »

Up to this point I’ve ignored every rumor about Hillary possibly running in 2016. She’s said numerous times that she’s “done,” and my understanding is that she’s tired of globe-trotting and wants to enjoy a few years of retirement.

However, it’s interesting that so many bigwigs in the Democratic Party are suddenly making noises about what a great candidate she’d be in 2016. BuzzFeed has a roundup of the latest, with Nancy Pelosi joining the ranks of Clinton supporters:

“I would love to see Secretary Clinton become the nominee for President in 2016,” Pelosi said during an appearance in the 92nd Street Y in New York City Sunday night.

“I do think the Secretary should entertain the thought of running in 2016,” said the former Speaker of the House, who was formally neutral in 2008 but was widely viewed as tacitly supporting Senator Barack Obama, then Clinton’s bitter rival. “Hasn’t she been a magnificent Secretary of State?”

Yes, she has been a magnificent Secretary of State. Especially considering that back injury from all the knives that somehow became embedded in her thoracic region in 2008. Right, Nancy?

But snark aside, what’s going on here? Even the Obama camp is saying what a peachy keen candidate she’d be. From BuzzFeed again:

In the past few weeks, a growing group of high-powered Washington figures have echoed Pelosi’s sentiments. New York Senator Kirsten Gillibrand told BuzzFeed she’d “be one of the first to ask Hillary to run in 2016,” while former New York City mayor Ed Koch said to “count [him] in” as a Hillary 2016 supporter. Democratic strategists James Carville and David Plouffe also acknowledged the potential strength of a Clinton candidacy, and even Bill Clinton said he’d be “happy” if his wife decided to run.

My personal instinct is that there are a couple of different reasons that people in the party are talking up Hillary ’16:

1. First and foremost, because it sweetens the pot for Obama’s reelection. It’s a clear path for the future: Hillary voters will get their chance after all, and the rest of the rank-and-file can feel optimistic about a smooth segue. Eight years of Obama + eight years of Hillary = Democratic White House FOREVER!
2. Because they really do want her to be President and have always wanted her to be President. This obviously only applies to a few genuine Hillary supporters.

I’m not sure anything has really changed inside the Clinton camp, though. Reading the transcript of that interview with Bill, it sounds to me like he’s saying pretty much what he’s always said:

“So basically by early 2013, she will have put in 21 years of unbroken work on this. And she wants to come home and decompress and relax. And I believe that she’s being absolutely honest with you when she says she doesn’t think she’ll go back into politics.

“Whether she does or not, who knows what will happen? I’ll say what I’ve said all my life. When I met her, I thought she was the most gifted person in my generation for public service. I still feel that way. I’m immensely proud of her. But if she comes home and we do this foundation stuff the rest of our lives, I’ll be happy. If she changes her mind and decides to run, I’ll be happy. But that’s light years away.”


Filed under: Various and Sundry · Tags:

40 Responses to “Hillary in 2016? Seriously?”

  1. falstaff says:

    One thought: This is the beginning of a campaign — quite possibly orchestrated by the White House, Axelrod, et al. — to dump Biden and have Hillary run as veep. The more she is seen as the natural successor, the more it spills back into the present. And, obviously, she’d be far more helpful to the Precious’s re-election than would Stumblemouth Joe. It seems to me an indication of fear — that we might actually lose to these denizens of the lobby of the Port Authority, and so we’re grabbing for a life preserver.

    Regardless, it’s just galling beyond words that these putzes don’t even have the decency to do a perfunctory mea culpa. Pelosi, Frank Rich, Heilmann, Tweety, Dowd, and on and on. They threw their knickers up onstage in 2008, spewed vitriol at the obviously superior Democrat — the only actual Democrat — and now Kool Aid wouldn’t melt in their mouth.

    Having said all that, I share your basic doubt that she’ll run. I think she’s grown past the personal need for it — for the power, that is. If she does run (snd I dearly hope she does), it will be with deeply selfless motives.

  2. Violet Socks says:

    This is the beginning of a campaign — quite possibly orchestrated by the White House, Axelrod, et al. — to dump Biden and have Hillary run as veep.

    I know people have said that, but I just don’t buy it. Biden isn’t an albatross; he’s not causing Obama any problems. I don’t see the need to get rid of him. Even when VPs are an embarrassment (remember Quayle?), presidents are more likely than not to stick with them unless there’s some catastrophe.

    I don’t think Obama is worried about reelection anyway. There’s no way he’s going to lose to Romney.

    I also really don’t think Hillary would accept the VP slot.

  3. falstaff says:

    Well, I’m just taking your sensible speculations one step further — one step farther along the spectrum from meme-mongering to planning. The psychological impacts you describe would be stronger in the scenario I’m suggesting. And though I certainly don’t see an urgent need to dump Biden, I do think that Hillary as veep-and-heir-apparent would greatly strengthen the ticket.

    Having said all that, I still share your sense that she doesn’t want or need it, personally, in her life, for her sense of herself. However… if she were to conclude that she has a duty to shoulder this burden — or arrive at some such judgment — then being veep for four years is something I could easily imagine her doing.

  4. falstaff says:

    Let me clarify: I’m not saying you are “meme-mongering,” or anything so disreputable sounding. I mean that your speculation is that they’re floating this Hillary 2016 prospect as a way of influencing current feelings… and I’m just wondering if it’s a prelude to an actual action by them that would even more effectively influence current feelings.

  5. Unree says:

    Who cares what those hacks think of a Hillary Clinton candidacy in 2016? They couldn’t keep her out then if she wants to run, and they couldn’t talk her into running if she doesn’t. I agree that this babble is probably a sign of their anxiety about Obama’s chances this fall. They have nothing to worry about, because the Republican nominee seems to make voters retch.

  6. Violet Socks says:

    Who cares what those hacks think of a Hillary Clinton candidacy in 2016?

    It was party hacks who killed her nomination chances in 2008 and backed Obama instead. The party leadership and power players matter a great deal, no matter what we think of them.

  7. Violet Socks says:

    falstaff, I got ya.

  8. Miss Clairol says:

    I really don’t see it happening. Hillary Clinton may have rose-colored glasses when it comes to the Democratic Party, but she’s not stupid. The party elite didn’t submarine her because they fell in love with the Golden Child, they did it because they hate her. And considering that this shell game actually succeeded pretty well for their purposes, there’d be no reason not to do it again. I can’t see going through all that again knowing how it’s going to end up.

    Plus, the smears never fully went away. I just read something–I think it was in Brilliant at Breakfast’s love letter to Olbermann–about Hillary’s racist campaign. A couple weeks ago when Game Change came out, you had major national columnists blathering on about the movie ignoring the other half of the story, how the Clintons forever damaged their reputations with their evil campaign. These idiots are ready to go back to Def Con 3 at a moment’s notice.

  9. quixote says:

    I’m with falstaff and Clairol. This is just some game they’re playing.

    And just for the record: if there’s any poorly stuffed sausage brain in the Administration who thinks floating ideas about Hillary as veep will get them any points, they need to go into the rotten food incinerator pronto. She has, for decades, been dancing in high heels and backward, and doing it ten times better than Mr. Precious, and they’re thinking veep? To that? I’d just about go phone bank for the Robot to try to make sure they lose.

  10. Nina M. says:

    My first instinct is that the weasels are worried that she’ll permanently retire from politics and begin work on an uncomfortably candid book. Or round of interviews. Either way, they’re worried about what she’ll say about them when she’s a free agent.

    My second instinct is that her favorables must be sky-high, much higher than Obamas, higher than any other Democratic potential surrogate. And they think it is good message strategy to associate Obama’s name with hers, particularly now as the GOP endeavors to alienate every woman, every where. Its the tactical equivalent to creeping up on her in the hope of rubbing her nose, or maybe her belly, for good luck.

  11. falstaff says:

    Miss Clairol: I agree it’s unlikely she’ll run, though I disagree about why. If she were inclined to run, I am confident that she has a thick enough skin to withstand CDS again. And given the failure of their favored child, I do think a goodly number of establishment Dems and the punditocracy would come along this time — that they would suppress their hatred for her. Indeed, that is exactly what we’re seeing now — die-hard Hillary-haters longing in public for her smarts, strength and candidacy. Many, of course, wouldn’t come along. But I think that the nomination is hers if she wants it.

    However, I actually believe she has grown past the kinds of personal motives that drive super-ambitious people along this path. I know this sounds impossibly Zen, but I actually think it’s the case that Hillary Clinton has grown into something unique in American history — the first powerful public woman with a full spectrum of choices. She’s freer to choose than any woman before her — and that very freedom may free her from the need to prove herself to anybody. fwiw, here are some old thoughts on the subject: http://falstaff-falstaff.blogspot.com/2008/12/hillarys-choice.html. And here: http://falstaff-falstaff.blogspot.com/2009/12/as-demonstration-of-governing-ability.html

  12. Violet Socks says:

    Its the tactical equivalent to creeping up on her in the hope of rubbing her nose, or maybe her belly, for good luck.

    This cracks me up.

  13. Carmonn says:

    I don’t think anyone is actually worried about Obama losing, but there are the downticket races. Obama may not care about those, but someone does. It’s just “Year of the Women” get-out-the-vote. Look! We have a woman! A real live woman! We might let her run, really! Because we’re here to protect your rights! We love you people! Look! We see a woman and we’re not forming a rabid wolfpack to destroy her reputation and end her career, we’re actually talking about her running! Without penis! Jerry Brown hasn’t even called her a whore yet! Our team is big enough to accomodate one of you! Team Woman!

    I don’t think it would ever be offered to her in a million years, but I do think she’d take Veep if it were. I think she really wants someone to break the gender barrier, and it’s not going to be anyone else. At least not in the next 500 years. And I do think it would help heal some wounds among women who were hurt and upset by Clinton’s treatment but still supported Obama and the Democrats. Not that Obama cares about that, which is why it won’t happen, but regardless of his intentions it would at least be better than a kick in the teeth. It can be a nice restful job, and while sure, she’d be somewhat at the frat boy cabal’s mercy in terms of being scapegoated and politically outmaneuvered, there’s not much more they can do to her at this point. If it got to be too disrespectful and aggravating, she could take her place in the history books, ignore them completely and retire to her office to nap.

  14. Violet Socks says:

    It’s just “Year of the Women” get-out-the-vote. Look! We have a woman! A real live woman! We might let her run, really! Because we’re here to protect your rights! We love you people! Look! We see a woman and we’re not forming a rabid wolfpack to destroy her reputation and end her career, we’re actually talking about her running! Without penis! Jerry Brown hasn’t even called her a whore yet! Our team is big enough to accomodate one of you! Team Woman!

    Also hilarious! This whole paragraph is perfect, Carmonn.

    I need to just outsource the writing to my commenters.

  15. Miss Clairol says:

    falstaff, I’m sorry, I wasn’t clear. I wasn’t bringing up the CDS to imply that she’s thin-skinned, my point was that Obama’s cadre’s scorched earth tactics are destructive to the party. And I think that that’s something Hillary Clinton would wish to avoid unless it’s absolutely necessary. She obviously had the stomach to fight them, but it’s not just an equal playing field, they have no problem locking and bulldozing the playing field. We disagree on whether she has a shot at the nomination (in my opinion, unless the Democrats have no shot in the general, she doesn’t), but I do think she is strongly committed to the Democratic Party. I just think she’d have to think long and hard about running if the odds are stacked firmly against her AND the Obama Democrats in and out of the party are so committed to causing maximum destruction.

    Personally, I don’t think it ever had much to do with proving herself. She’s a brilliant, dedicated wonk dealing with morons of messy character and 18th century views of women and minority groups, in and out of her own party. I think it’s more to do with balancing a whole series of other factors, like the fate of the party or, as Carmonn says, helping the cause of women in politics, than just personal ambition. But, who knows.

  16. Miss Clairol says:

    Excuse me, that should be “not just an unequal playing field” and “the Obama Democrats in and out out of the party elite.”

  17. Unree says:

    I was unclear up there @5. I meant who cares about the bloviating positive noises these hacks emit, now that whatever goodwill they express for HRC won’t matter either way.

  18. Teresainpa says:

    this is all a bit hard to take considering the people wanted her in 2008. Those bastards (yes, including Pelosi) have a lot a nerve condescending to her now. I say we start up the WPA again and not let Pelosi and other female Obots be included.
    After 8 years of Obama, sure “let’s let Hillary run.”

  19. Jay says:

    I’m sorry team, but this is nothing to get excited about. A Hillary presidency would mean about as much for women as the Obama presidency does for black people. (meaningless, empty symoblism)

  20. Sameol says:

    Thanks for that brilliant insight, Jay. If you look at Obama and Clinton’s records, they certainly are pretty much equivalent in terms of their commitment to their most supportive constituencies. And we know you have, of course, because there is no cause more dear to the hearts of liberal dudez than the advancement of womankind. Thanks for setting us straight, we do get fuzzy headed.

    Now, back to my rightful place behind the coffee pot.

  21. Jay says:

    Pretty much equivalent? When it comes to endless warmaking and being a dutiful slaves to wall street? Yes, yes I’d say so.

  22. Carmonn says:

    Jay, it’s always exciting to be away from home for the first time and be exposed to all of these new and exciting ideas. Unfortunately, what’s new to you might be the same old others have heard a trillion times before. If we’re all on the same team, you might want to come up with something beyond after the revolution we’ll magically graduate from hate objects and sex toys to equal partners. I mean, yay team, and all, and I don’t want my lack of belief to kill Tinkerbell, but–uh, no. At this point, I need a little more than that. Please don’t go from talking about what a H. Clinton Presidency would mean “for women” to a treatise on the military-industrial complex. Heard it, got it, no longer impressed.

  23. falstaff says:

    Jay — Clearly, you’re no Obot. Good. I don’t need to recommend “Confidence Men.” I can, instead, focus on the differences in experience, intellect and proposed policies of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama in the ’08 primaries — the last time we could make a full and reasonable comparison. And there was really no comparison. You can assert that Hillary would be a dutiful slave to Wall St., but the record of the policies she laid out says something else. Same on healthcare. And are you seriously arguing that, at the very least, Hillary Clinton would not have been a stronger leader than Mr. Post-partisan?

    I do hope Obama grows into the job, at least a little bit. I hope he finally finally stops floating like a butterfly and starts stinging like a bee. But surely it’s not unreasonable for progressives to have concluded that we’d be in far better shape today if an actual puncher — and one who knew what she was punching FOR — had been in the White House for the past three years.

  24. Jay says:

    I think you’re imagining a Hillary presidency based on the Hillary who ran in a democratic primary. If Obama has taught us anything it’s that proposed policies and stated principals from that time period translate to absolutely nothing.

    Hillary has openly embraced the most vile aspects of Bush/Cheney/Obama foreign policy as Secretary of State. She has indeed done a ‘magnificent’ job… carrying out the policies of bloody empire, including banging the drum as loud as anyone for the catastrophe that will be war in Iran.

    I see no evidence to indicate she would have been anything other than the NAFTA passing, welfare slashing, wall street deregulating “centrist” that her husband was on the domestic front.

    I agree 100% she would have done a better job standing up to the GOP than Obama, but on most of issues there is no real Dem/GOP debate of substance, and a status quo politician like Hillary sure as hell wouldn’t have waged one.

    But hey, just my opinion, we’ll never know for sure, I didn’t mean to rub anyone the wrong way – I enjoy reading this site – definitely has helped me to better recognize the magnitude of sexism that poisons our society.

  25. Violet Socks says:

    Yes, she largely is a centrist Democrat on most matters (though to the left of Obama), and her foreign policy probably wouldn’t be too much different. As for wiretapping, torture, and so on, I see no reason to believe that she would have embarked on as far-right a policy as Obama has, who of course has been shockingly aggressive.

    But Hillary Clinton’s record on women’s rights is a million times better than Obama’s, as is her understanding of the issues, her grasp of policy, her commitment to healthcare for women as well as men, and so forth.

    I realize that to virtually all progressive men, issues affecting women are not “real” issues. The “real” issues are the war, the empire, and so on, and things that affect women are just some kind of extra side issue. Progressive men typically cannot see any reason that women’s issues are genuinely critical, since as long as the “real” issues of the war, empire, etc. aren’t being addressed, then who’s benefitting? Well, women, of course, but that brings us right to the fact that progressive men don’t grasp that women are human and our issues are human issues.

  26. Miss Clairol says:

    Actually, no, we didn’t learn that from Obama. Obama isn’t exactly the epitome of honest politics, but he was actually fairly upfront with his ideology for the most part. His supporters were too busy screaming misogynistic abuse at his opponent, swooning when he sneezed, and talking about how he was *obviously* a secret super liberal trying to lull The Man into a false sense of security to listen, however.

  27. Susan says:

    Jay, in Carl Bernstein’s not-very-sympathetic biography of Hillary, he made it clear that she initially opposed NAFTA and welfare reform and worked to change both initiatives to better represent the interests of the poor, working-class and middle-class Americans.

    On human rights issues, Hillary is head and shoulders above Obama and on women’s rights, no one in political life has worked so relentlessly on behalf of women in my memory. Hillary is an advocate for women. Obama uses women as if we’re poker chips.

  28. Jay says:

    Obama ran his entire primary with re-establishing the rule of law and reigning in the imperial presidency as a center piece of the campaign. There was nothing upfront about his radical Dick Cheney like ideology in this area.

    I like to think I consider issues affecting women to be as real as all the rest. I am just cynical as to how hard a centrist corporate democrat would have fought for them – after the primary when all their votes were already in the bag. Have you heard Obama mention black unemployment once in 3 years?

    But like I said, we’ll never know.

  29. falstaff says:

    Jay — You’re right that we can’t know — and also, it would be foolish to argue that Hillary would never have disappointed us. But I really do believe there are profound differences between the two — differences not only of ideology and experience and gender and intellect, but of character. To many of us, those differences were apparent during the primaries, and I believe they have been borne out by events. We had a lifetime of public service and action by which to judge Hillary’s character, not to mention the remarkable evolution of her public self during the primaries themselves. We didn’t really have much of anything by which to judge Barack Obama. Now we do. Again, I recommend “Confidence Men.” He was simply unprepared for this job and this work — and probably constitutionally (no pun intended) incapable of it.

    There’s no use crying over spilled ballots, and without question, the Republicans are a true horror show. I intend to vote for Obama, holding my nose, because I truly fear the alternative. But I guess I’d just conclude by saying that I don’t think it’s either foolish or fanciful for people to engage in the kind of speculation about Hillary’s future that you see here — and I can only say that I, for one, would vote for her in 2016 with nostrils fully dilated.

  30. Violet Socks says:

    I am just cynical as to how hard a centrist corporate democrat would have fought for them – after the primary when all their votes were already in the bag. Have you heard Obama mention black unemployment once in 3 years?

    Why do you keep referring to Obama for insight into how Hillary would behave? I’m sorry, but you give the impression that you just discovered politics in 2008, and you are unaware that Hillary Clinton has had a career that is many decades longer than Obama’s.

    Hillary has always fought for women’s rights. A big reason her healthcare plan went down in flames in the 90s is because she refused to compromise on women’s reproductive choice.

  31. Teresainpa says:

    jay, so you are saying because Obama is a snake what chance does a mere woman have of not being any better?
    Bite me.

    BTW, Hillary Clinton is not nearly as centrist as Obama. She never would have hired Arnie Duncan for example and she said NCLB was bad legislation and should be scrapped. She also said single payer should be ON the table if ever a democratic president had majorities in congress and the senate. Like others have said, she certainly wouldn’t be selling women down the river concerning contraception and choice.\

    Unlike some I will not be voting for Obama. I will be writing in a candidate, some woman. It might be Hillary. It might be me, who knows.

  32. anna says:

    You could vote Jill Stein (the Green Party candidate.)

  33. Carmonn says:

    The best way to find out about someone’s record is to do some digging into it. If we for some reason believe Bill and Hillary Clinton are in fact the same person, a little bit of research would show that she might be different on NAFTA, for example, because it’s long been established that she differed from her husband’s position on NAFTA. If we’re curious about someone’s lifelong commitment to women’s rights, again, a quick google search would help out there.

    Look, I don’t want to be harsh, but this particular talking point is extremely tiresome, for several reasons. One, because there’s no comparison between Obama’s lifelong lack of accomplishment and Hillary Clinton’s long career. Two, because Obama’s supporters turned that primary into some kind of epic struggle between Our Savior and the Wicked Witch of the West. It’s tiresome when they do that and then come back with “Ho hum, I guess there really is no difference after all.”

    And third, because Obama isn’t even a good snake oil salesman. It’s tiresome that his supporters fell for this transparent farce that had no basis in reality, and then, once their Plastic Jesus turned out to be not what he’s cracked up to be, instead of looking their lack of judgment straight in the eye, disavow responsibility by retreating into this meme of inevitabilty. Nothing matters, nothing can be done, they’re all the same. Every path would have led us here. No. Just because they’re disappointed and things didn’t work out did not mean that the election of 2008 was meaningless. No. They got played and this outcome was only inevitable under one scenario. We wouldn’t be living in utopia under anyone else, but no one else could have gotten away with close to what Obama has, either.

  34. Jay says:

    I concede Obama’s total failures have colored my perception of all mainstream democratic politicians. Maybe that’s not fair. But to me, imagining Hillary “I consider Hosni Mubarrak a close friend of the family” Clinton as some sort of paragon of a progressive presidential warrior, after she has dutifully fallen lockstep into the service of the President you despise, is demonstrating the same lack of judgment us idiots did when we voted for Obama. (for me personally, it came down to Hillary’s vote for the 1 million+ casualty Iraq war… of course now I have no doubt that if Obama had actually been in the Senate at the time he would have made the exact same vote.)

  35. Violet Socks says:

    But to me, imagining Hillary “I consider Hosni Mubarrak a close friend of the family” Clinton as some sort of paragon of a progressive presidential warrior, after she has dutifully fallen lockstep into the service of the President you despise, is demonstrating the same lack of judgment us idiots did when we voted for Obama.

    But nobody is doing that. This is all in your head. You seem to think in extremes: politicians are either Jesus or Satan.

    What people in this thread have been trying to describe is Hillary Clinton’s actual strengths and actual record. One more time: she is largely a centrist Democrat, somewhat to the left of Obama, and she is very much a feminist with a strong commitment to women’s rights.

    As for “falling lockstep” into Obama’s foreign policy, actually I would point out that she herself is almost certainly the architect of the State Department’s sudden focus on women’s issues all around the world. But as for the rest, yes, she’s a good soldier, and does the same realpolitik that other Secretaries of State have done and will do forever. Nobody imagines otherwise.

    A huge difference between Clinton supporters and Obama supporters in 2008 was this very problem we’re having right here in this thread. Forgive me for speaking in generalizations, but a whole lot of Obama supporters seemed more like religious fanatics or swooning fans than people with any kind of grasp of how politics works and what we can realistically expect from a Democratic president. It was ridiculous, from the will.i.am stuff to the paintings of Obama As Messiah to the people swooning that he would put an end to War Forever and that he was the savior of the millennium…god, it was ridiculous.

    Clinton supporters, on the other hand, were typically much more realistic about who all these candidates were. It was obvious that Obama was not much more than an empty suit, and his real political positions (as opposed to the fantasy stuff attributed to him) were alarmingly conservative. Hillary Clinton was and is a brilliant person with a lifetime of achievement and demonstrated dedication. Not a radical, not even much of a leftist, but a good solid centrist Democrat and feminist.

  36. Miss Clairol says:

    Nobody said Hillary Clinton is perfect. But that’s kind of the point. She got savaged for not being perfect even though her record overall is actually better than that of the men who are savaging her. What are we supposed to do with that? You’re not the only one who blamed her for her vote–several Democratic Senators who cast the exact same vote did too! If perfection is your standard cool as long as you’re consistent.

    Meanwhile, perfection is not my standard, and there’s simply no way we would not be better off under a Clinton presidency. To pretend otherwise is silly. Obama has pretty much run the table in doing the wrong thing at every turn, setting a standard that would be unmatchable for anyone, not just Clinton. I’ll take your judgment on ours on board, for what it’s worth–but since virtually everything we predicted has actually happened while you all were blundsidsd and dumbfounded, I’m not so sure what it is worth right about now.

  37. Three Wickets says:

    Robert Kagan the founder of PNAC gets featured in The New Republic, a publication now owned and operated by OFA, and Kagan’s ideas inspire the core message in Obama’s most recent SOTU address. Obama is a Republican. Also, there’s no way Hillary would have been as good to Wall Street as Obama has, or been as economically insensitive to working people and minorities. She would have been stronger for women and families on both economic and social policy. CDS Progressives have hurt the left, we’ll be feeling it for a long time.

  38. angie says:

    And lets please remember that Hillary Clinton said something to Obama in a debate in 2008 during the Dem. primary that is as true today as it was then (although she was practically stoned to death for saying it):

    I do think your record and what you say matters. And when it comes to a lot of the issues that are important in this race it is sometimes difficult to understand what Senator Obama has said because as soon as he’s confronted on it he says that’s not what he meant.

    Obama is still doing this and yet people still refuse to acknowledge the difference between someone with an actual 20+ year record & Obama (who now has for the first time in his life a “record” and it is, as Jay puts it a “record of failures”). It’s mind boggling to me — I have to believe they are willfully ignorant.

  39. Nina M. says:

    Jay says:
    Obama ran his entire primary with re-establishing the rule of law and reigning in the imperial presidency as a center piece of the campaign. There was nothing upfront about his radical Dick Cheney like ideology in this area.

    I disagree. I seem to remember him saying that he would conduct military or anti-terrorist operations in another country without that country’s permission, if he felt the situation warranted it. Very Cheney-esque.

    But then he took it back and tried a different position. Personally, I believed him the first time.

  40. bemused-leftist says:

    As for possible motives for Hillary to run again, I doubt that any of that stuff about ‘no need to prove herself’ applies at all.

    Hillary has already BEEN President. She and Bill have always been a team, twofer. She’s lived in the WH, she knows what the job is.

    I hope after she gets a nice vacation, the party insiders will come round and offer to back her for the nomination in 2016. In that case she might try again. I hope.