After months of speculation that morphed into bet-the-house assumption, the former First Lady, Senator, and Secretary of State announced that she is indeed running for President in 2016. Her video is actually mostly about the aspirations of others. She seems to be channeling Elizabeth Warren a bit in her own statement. The RNC is clearly afraid of her and Wayne LaPierre was on a tear at the NRA convention. The Vast Right Wing Conspiracy has also made it clear they haven’t forgotten the 1990s and will make sure we don’t either. She is my candidate for much the same reason she was in 2008. She is hands down the best prepared to be President, and even more so now after a term as Secretary. I eagerly await news of office openings in NH.
Please share widely!
Vox.com points out that Hillary is moving back to the idea of coming together collectively to work together, in contrast to the individualism of the GOP. Pretty good video.
http://www.vox.com/2015/4/12/8396027/hillary-clinton-video-ad
I appreciate the quick and effective reference to “those at the top”. I like it that Ms. Clinton doesn’t even appear until more than halfway through the video. The whole first half of the video is an update of what “it takes a village” means today.
I like it. If this is the theme of the campaign — it takes a village, in stark contrast to the tired 80’s Alex-Keaton selfishness of the GOP — then I think we’re looking at a winner.
For all of us.
Go Hillary. She’s running for the America of the future. The Republicans are running for the America of the past. It’s a pretty clear choice.
Barney Frank for VP, just for the entertainment factor.
in as Secretary of the Treasury!
Or so a less-powerful Dem can run for her seat in a Special? No, thanks.
Secretary of Fine Arts.
I figure that for all of her possibly primary opponents, the No 2 spot is 90% of the real calculation.
As a sly way to keep the job he has. I had more than one person enthusiastically want Biden to be held over as Veep. Of course, my first choice is Selena Meyers.
I like it. Much more than I thought I would.
Can’t say I liked it. Can’t say I did not like it.
In national elections the Democratic Party has the Electoral College votes. The path to 270 for a Republican is tough. The Republican Congress also works against the GOP winning the White House.
The R’s will battle each other for a while, and whoever emerges will be hard pressed to compete with her stature, not to mention they will be behind in the general with money and infrastructure. Today’s news story is Rubio is the new Obama, but I don’t see it.
So not looking forward to the election season at all. Most likely it will oscillate between boring and stupid. Note that I am also not looking forward to a 2012 repeat “what will be coming out of the mouths of the Republican candidates today?”
I worry that younger voters may stay home. 2014 would surely not have happened if the people who came out for Obama in 2008 had shown up at the polls.
Al Gore in 2000 never once made a case for voting Democratic, as opposed to voting for him.
One thing I can feel confident saying is that if the campaign evolves into a mud-slinging contest, the Republicans will likely win. We need to convince people to come out and vote for Hillary; the Republicans, in contrast, only need to discourage as many people as possible from voting, as their people will always turn out. So, I’m not as optimistic as some folks.
Nate Silver seems to think Hillary’s chances are 50/50.
and she will have trouble getting the Obama turnout, except that her overall coalition numbers are growing so she might be looking at more voters even with a lower overall turnout. She will add some women who are looking for the making history connection.
I think she’s looking at the same Obama electoral votes, though a case can be made that OH, FL, VA, IN, and NC are toss ups (I don’t think so though). Even if she lost all of them, she’s still at 272. I don’t buy the line that PA is in play, nor is CO, IA, or even NH.
Toss ups (or worse) for HRC: OH, VA, IN, NC, CO, NH, NV
Better than toss up for HRC: FL, PA, IA, NH, VA
I also worry about WI and NM a little bit, but I think HRC will make the GOP sweat about GA, KY (if only briefly), MO, and TN (if only briefly).
Obama had huge problems in Appalachia — that is, controlling for all other demographics, Obama underperformed. HRC will likely do much better there, which will putt PA on lock down, help with VA and NC, and make the GOP sweat at least a little bit with WV, KY, TN, GA.
I really hope HRC has coat tails, particularly in the Rust Belt. WI, MI, IN, and OH all have GOP gov and GOP legislature, and no state (not even Illinois) in the region has Dem corner office and legislature. Similarly, I hope she gets a little momentum for the Dems back in Nevada, Colorado, Arizona, and New Mexico, where Democratic gains have been beaten back reccently.
between boring and stupid.
The Democratic Strategist reports that J
I thought it was interesting that the author went through a relatively thorough quantitative analysis and then dropped that judgmental line in, which obviously appealed to you.
I hesitate to name call when it comes to politics, who’s a “lunatic” or stupid, or a lemming, etc. is really just a name for people who you disagree with. If you consider Reince Priebus a lunatic, you would have to concede at least that he has some skills with off year elections.
It’s going to be boring because they are going to cover the same ground over and over again. It’s going to be stupid because it order to make in interesting they are going to jump on every little thing and then ride it to death.
Objectively speaking, how are Marco Rubio, Rand Paul, Rick Perry not lunatics? To the extent that anybody “runs” the GOP (besides Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck), how is “lunatic” anything but an accurate description?
Who, in the national Democratic Party structure, is even remotely comparable to the GOP cast of clowns?
You can get to be a talk show host without one person voting for you.
But you can’t become a US Senator and not have something going on. People have to see and hear you and then vote for you.
Take Ted Cruz for example. Would you say that Princeton (AB) or Harvard Law (JD) are in the habit of admitting and then graduating lunatics? Rand Paul and Ben Carson are medical doctors. On the subject of doctors, you might want to note that the presidential candidate who actually acted like a lunatic was Dr. Howard Dean. You can catch that moment here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l6i-gYRAwM0
You also might recall he was DNC chair for a time.
I also take issue with the “runs the party” characterization. I think it’s clear that neither party has some Politburo at the time that makes decisions.
PS As to people at the top the Democratic Party, I don’t want to mention the names that most often come up in my circle as I’m sure that would generate a whole new line comments and that would be pointless. These are opinions not facts, and that’s what the lunatic comments is as well.
At that moment, he acted like a celebrating sports fan. Just because the corporate media chose to mischaracterize his enthusiasm doesn’t make their version the truth. To mention him in the same light as Cruz, et. al. is insulting our intelligence.
Sounds like a lunatic to me.
A psychological mechanism that convinces the subject that what’s going on between their ears must be the same as what’s happening between someone else’s.
nt
Ted Cruz is scary to me because he is a classic demagogue, unconcerned about the facts if they get in the way of advancing his own interests, just concerned with spreading fear to win power. No way a student personally advised by Harvey C. Mansfield who in law school refused to study with anyone who didn’t go to a Big 3 undergrad (HYP), believes in half he shit he is spouting. No way someone who doubted the academic chops of a Michigan grad views Falwell’s money making operation where he announced for president as anything better than a clown college. Mansfield is a classic Straussian, so I am sure this social conservatism is just another noble lie in the name of neoconservative foreign policy and economics. Cruz sure plays the part as well , but no way he graduates a climate and evolution denier.
They are very rational, if wretches.
is filled with batshit crazy candidates catering to batshit crazy people down South. I like you, but your party has jumped the shark years ago. When Jeb (!) is considered moderate, you know the party is tilted far to the right. Tom Cotton, Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, Michelle Bachmann, Rick Perry, and Rick Santorum? We have nowhere near the lunacy present in today’s GOP.
I have more respect for Paul, Santorum and Huckabee in the sense that they actually sincerely believe the bullshit they back-no way in hell the others all educated at our best schools by some of our most influential professors actually believe it. Which makes them far more dangerous.
The most dangerous of the bunch, Walker, has already flip flopped more times than Romney or Kerry ever did-but he gets away with the son of a small town preacher bullshit in front of Christians in IA and a bro who shops at SAMs club and kohls in front of blue collars in NH-and eventually in purple states across America. I am thankful the Clinton’s have a dossier on all these clowns.they are ruthless cold bastards-but they’re our bastards.
I could write a whole post about it, but I first swung right in 84 when I was watching the Democratic Convention and they were talking about the demographics of delegates and I thought “none of these people are me.” I was never a Reagan fan (voted for Anderson in 80, got to the polls too late to vote in 84) but I wasn’t a Dukakis or Mondale fan either. I did vote Clinton 92. I had lost faith in Bush by 04 voting for Kerry, and wasn’t going McCain/Palin in 08.
I like a majority of what the party stands for, but of course some of the people are too much. In general I would say though, as a person that knows a lot of people on both sides in my area, I’m in the right spot, at least here. Maybe in OK I’d be a Democrat.
This could be a whole other post as well… there’s several reasons that extremists don’t end up at the top in the Democratic Party. One is that most of your politicians view it as a career. Get elected somewhere, try for a higher office when you can. Become an aide. Run when your person retires or moves on. It’s a long climb but they’re will to be patient. There’s an establishment that for the most part (Patrick’s an exception in MA obviously, jumping the queue) keeps the candidates flowing. In all the blue states it’s pretty much the same, and control of government’s the prize and the blue states are structured that way.
For Republicans it’s more wide open. Firstly many Republican candidates make money then run for office (Romney), or they get somewhere and then leave office to make money (Weld, Celluci). Because of this, that allows anyone to give it a shot (because there’s no obvious bench), and the Republican primary voters are okay with it (Gabriel Gomez). Ted Cruz beat a sitting Lt Gov who outspent him more than 2:1. I can’t see that happening in a blue state. The Lt Gov would be a long time party figure with a wide base of support in a primary (Dewhurst had been in office for awhile, but was elected to office the first time as a 53 yo rich guy).
These are just broad brush strokes, but that’s the major difference and why some of these people get to the top.
Rick Perry is/was considered a very successful politician in TX. He just kinda flubbed it on the national stage and his schtick was a little much for the rest of us.
affiliation. There are plenty of Republicans who are NOT batshit crazy. I may not agree with most Republican stances, but I know and agree with many Republicans at the local level. But the national GOP is batshit crazy.
There are a*holes in both parties, but there are very few crazy Democrats. Maybe that’s because we look at politics as a career, but maybe because we actually believe in government. There may be some Democratic extremists hiding in the Congress, but I’m not aware of anyone like that. They certainly don’t have any prominence. I’m familiar with the hard Left, who tend nonetheless more rational and civil than the hard Right. Noam Chomsky, Naomi Wolf, and publications like Jacobin are the hard left. They receive little or no attention from Democrats or the political world. The Kochs, Mellon-Scaife, Grover Norquist, ALEC, the NRA, the Family Research Council–there is no end to the reactionary forces the GOP accomodates.
It’s a blessing and a curse that weeds out a lot of extremists. I pine for the days when Milwaukee or Harlem would send bona ride socialists and Commies to Congress. Alan Grayson is about the only figure I can think about on the left, and even he and Bernie pass bills.
There are at least 20-40 members of the GOP majority in the house and maybe 10 Senators that are there to play to talk radio and make noise, as oppose to actually work for a living. I can’t count how many times righties mocked me in 08′ and 12′ for nominating a guy with less than a term in the senate and no executive experience. These same folks are pining for Rand, Rubio or Cruz who are one termsrs or Walker whose wasted his governorship on partisan sideshows. Fair enough-Tisei and Baker are credible. Can’t think of anyone nationally with the same kind of record.
I heard Barney Frank tell a political gathering something along the lines of “Electing a Republican to high office is like choosing me to judge a beauty contest — I might be able to go through the motions, but my heart wouldn’t be in it.”
The GOP has been running against government for generations, going all the way back at least as far as Ronald Reagan. Their slogans, promises, and campaign pitches have always been anti-government (“privatization”, for example). It therefore should come as no surprise that that they aren’t very good at it when elected.
Their hearts aren’t in it.
is rewriting the “not good at governing” book.
politician. A lousy wholesale politician. And an average governor. He seemed to have no clue about Beacon Hill politics. He was a better candidate than the Last Irishman Standing Tom Reilly. And he wasn’t a Republican. That’s always a plus in our book.
His Olympian hiring and joining Bain Capital are more of his lousy wholesale politics, not his average governance.
“privatization” is not a dirty word in my book, and I disagree completely with this particular comment.
Most government programs can be measured by an objective metric of whether they are effective or not. Programs like Social Security, EITC, WIC, and Medicare and Medicaid have been dramatically successful at reducing elderly and childhood poverty while also reducing elderly and childhood health costs. Expanding them might even benefit those of us in the middle of those two demographics.
Judging privatization by the same metric shows that it only works if an industry is not a geffen good given over to a natural monopoly, and if we can create the right regulatory climate to ensure that rent seeking industries don’t capture the profits for themselves. Privatizing and deregulating airlines was a widely successful policy in reducing fees, privatizing flag waivers are construction sites is a similarly successful policy that works in the other 49 states, as does a deregulated insurance market.
Yet these are usually outliers. In most circumstances, privatization causes problems, particularly when public goods have to be delivered to their recipients at all times and this delivery has to be protected by market failure. Privatizing the post was a mistake in Britain and Japan and shouldn’t be attempted here. Privatizing rail was a success in Asia and Australia, a mixed bag in Britain, and would likely be a failure here, as the pre-Amtrak failure rate of private railroads should attest to.
The right fetishizes it as a necessity and an instrinsic good, an end, rather than a means to an end. That is what Tom and I are opposing. An ideology that always favors the market over the government, that always favors the private over the public, and the corporation over the community. I favor doing what makes sense for the community, and in many cases, privatization can be successful. In many cases it is unsuccessful. And it’s not the panacea the right makes it out to be.
Better than the announcement for the 2008 primary. I understand that she is traveling to Iowa in a van without the national press. Allows her to break out of the cocoon into which the secret service and her national stature has put her. Good start!
Hillary Clinton is absolutely channeling Elizabeth Warren in it. This is a video about people making new starts in their lives, but it is more than anything else about their desires to fulfill middle-class aspirations. It has been Warren, though, who has established herself as a champion of the middle class, not Clinton. I was left feeling that this really should have been Warren’s presidential announcement video.
On top of that is the problem that in having ordinary people describe the start of great undertakings in their lives, the video may unintentionally reinforce the contrast with Clinton. After all, running for president really isn’t a start for her, but a continuation of something she has been doing since 2008.
All that said, I’ve always supported Hillary Clinton and think this is her time. I’m just not sure this video emphasizes her real strengths.
That, of course, is exactly the point! 😀
Seriously, though, I think what’s really good about the video is how little it is about her. I can’t recall an announcement video from any other candidate taking a similar strategy, where the candidate doesn’t even appear until well into it. It’s a clever way of acknowledging both that she is a very well-known quantity who hardly needs any introduction, and also that she recognizes that her campaign needs to be about more than her desire to be president.
Unlike most candidates, she doesn’t need to “introduce herself”. So she doesn’t have to talk about herself, and why we should want to accompany her on “this journey”. Instead, it’s presumed that we already know it’s worth talking to her, so she can go right to the “I’m listening” part. Humility born of decades of hard work.
This is why I’m torn. I honestly think Hillary could bite a bats’ head off ALS Ozzy on national television and still wall away with the nomination and at least half of the popular vote. This is why I favored a left of center primary challenge (and still do) to test her, force her to the left, and generate some excitement on our side of the primary cycle so people are tuned in.
That said, I also think she has nothing left to lose. This is a great opportunity for her to take bold risks, and I like where she is headed. Actually drive to Iowa and NH on a van and just hold town halls a la McCain 2000. Basically run as a blank slate “I got 30 years of policy and political experience fighting the toughest battles in Washington on your behalf-what would you like me to do for the next 8?”. Let the voters write her platform and let them provide the sound bites. There is nothing to lose trying to do this differently and authentically, bland and poll tested didn’t work the last time-and when she did regain her footing it was after the “real Hillary” came out.
It seems to me that this exemplifies how officials (such as Senators) and would-be officials (such as Presidents) work together.
Indeed, Ms. Clinton is building on the agenda that Ms. Warren has been so effectively promoting for years. Surely this is a good thing! It seems to me that this is precisely why Ms. Warren is NOT running — so that BOTH Ms. Clinton and Ms. Warren can promote the same agenda.
In my view, one Ms. Clinton’s more important real strengths is her ability to see and frame current events through a consistent Democratic lens (though not as progressive as I would like). It seems to me that we are watching Ms. Clinton recognize the power and persuasiveness — especially against the GOP — of Ms. Warren’s agenda, and adjust her presidential campaign direction accordingly.
This EXACTLY what I want Ms. Clinton to do, and exactly what I want Ms. Warren to do.
then it is really Warren who should be running for president. The problem with the video is that it is entirely devoted to Warren’s agenda. Clinton has many other strengths, particularly her experience in foreign policy. Granted, it is difficult to make a concise case about something like foreign policy, but I think that’s the kind of thing that should have been in there. In other words, the video should have said more about Clinton’s overall reasons for running. Instead, it focuses on just one area, which happens to be Warren’s area.
Hillary Clinton was promoting “It takes a village” in the mid-nineties, long before Ms. Warren was involved in politics. In my view, what Ms. Clinton’s video is about is “it takes a village”. If anybody is talking about anybody’s agenda, it is Ms. Warren who has very skillfully updated Ms. Clinton’s 1996 tag line.
I’m not sure why you seem so intent on making a dichotomy here. In my view, we have two different politicians and two different agendas that happen to resonate VERY well together. The “E” and the “G” in a C-Major chord are distinct and different tones. The result is better than both individually.
I far prefer this announcement video as-is. I think it DOES express Ms. Clinton’s overall reasons for running, reasons that Ms. Clinton has been talking about in one form or another — and acting on — for more than twenty years.
so much as Warren’s populist theme of the middle class versus those at the top. As has been noted, Clinton says very little in the video, but she does say, “The deck has been stacked in favor of those at the top.” I completely agree with that and think it’s a great theme to run on. But given this was an announcement video for a presidential run, I was hoping for Clinton to be more comprehensive.
Even I think the deck is stacked in favor of those at the top.
The question is “what are you going to do about it?”
I keep wondering when someone goes to jail or when the Fed (in particular the NY Fed) stops being the lapdog of Wall Street. If Obama didn’t do anything about it, why should anyone believe that Ms. Clinton will do anything?
On another note, for years the right has referred to her (disrespectfully in my view) as just “Hillary.” We’ve obviously had discussions here about “Liz.” Now her official logo has “Hillary for America.” Not sure what to make of that except maybe more evidence of the decline of our culture. I do wonder how she’ll be addressed- Secretary? Senator? Mrs.?
“Champion” was the word that Elizabeth Warren used. Who knows, maybe she was consulted on the script. That would not be a bad thing.
I don’t know who the Libertarian party will nominate. It’s Hillary for the Dems, Rubio for the Republicans. The most dramatic moment of the campaign will be when a question is asked in front of a mostly Hispanic audience and Rubio answers first, in Spanish. Hillary’s reaction will be a defining moment. I just hope all parties nominees get invited to the debates.
Jeb “I’m a Hispanic” Bush would win Florida.
From Latino Decisions (April 10, 2015):
And in states with Latino critical masses:
The idea is to compare how Marco will do with how Mitt did.
Jeb sucks away all the Miami money and support, and all the Wall Street, Greenwich, Wilmette and LA support. All the major GOP Hispanics are behind him as well. There is no room for Rubio in this race-he is running for VP or as a second choice if Jeb severely falters (an affair revelation, financial scandal, or major gaffe where he crosses a line from maverick to heretic). And even then-Walker seems more likely to take up that torch. Rubio is the Pawlenty of this cycle.
Heh. Good one jc.
You don’t often see two candidates from the same party and state.
As an emotional Italian gay guy I must confess I wept when I first saw her video especially the two guys holding hands.
I love Hillary and I’m going to work my ass off to help make her our first PROGRESSIVE , INTERNATIONALIST, PEACE LOVING, WOMAN PRESIDENT.
And yes, I’ll treat ANY BMGer to a lobster dinner on me if any puke beats her!
Fasten your seatbelts my friends. We’re in for a bumpy ride. But it’s going to be the most exciting campaign
in my lifetime and I can’t wait for the fight to begin.
Hillary for America! Go Hillary !
The Happy Warrior and your loyal soldier,
Fred Rich LaRiccia
I love the enthusiasm, although I don’t share it at all, but “progressive” and “peace loving”? Sure, compared to any Republican running. But we can and should do better. When we use those terms to describe someone like Clinton, those words lose a lot of their meaning.
It may be exciting (although the Dem primary will likely be a snooze), but it may also be quite depressing and ugly. And if it ends up being Bush v. Clinton, we might as well pack it all up. The experiment will have been proven a failure.
She likes to call herself that, but she must be using a special definition. Have a look at her positions on issues. Among other things, she:
* Voted for the Authorization to Use Force in Iraq
* Voted for the Patriot Act (and for the renewal)
* Believes that national security is more important than human rights
* Has said that religious political officials should be able to “live out their faith in the public square.”
* Supports “three strikes” mandatory sentencing laws
* Supports the death penalty
* Supports No Child Left Behind
* Opposes single-payer health care
Yes, these are all cherry-picked, and she does support some more progressive positions on other issues, but overall, I would not call her a progressive.
Plus it’s going to drive the wingers nuts.
It does not make me feel any better about her as a leader (about that: Talk is cheap), but it’s a great way to launch her campaign
I’ve long felt Hillary has the judgment, experience, capabilities and strength as a partisan warrior to be the next LBJ. The pragmatist who actually enacts the agenda of their liberal predecessor. I will write a bigger red state diary later from my experiences hanging with friends on the other side of the aisle down here in Texas, but they have a respect for the Clinton’s that transcends partisanship, and I’ve encountered that again and again on my travels here and an earlier trip through Missouri.
Populist economics are the most bipartisan and frankly non partisan position to win back working folks. They aren’t stupid, they know the game is rigged, and they want a fighter who will battle on their behalf. This was a great way to start that kind of campaign.
Until near the end when she finally appeared I was starting to think, “They did upload the correct video, right?” I’m glad all these folks have plans, but I guess I’m more of an old-fashioned what-does-the-candidate-want-to-do guy. I also wonder if low-key is going to come across as disingenuous. I’ve heard it is her strength so there’s certainly an argument to go with one’s strengths, but with her star power I hope we do get to the rallies eventually. After so much anticipation it just strikes me as anti-climatic and underwhelming.
Clinton doesn’t need to introduce herself. She doesn’t need to demonstrate her credentials or toughness. If you aren’t already convinced by now, you probably won’t be. When is the last time such a thoroughly known quantity ran for election? Bush Sr. ’88? Kennedy ’80? Nixon ’72?
Hillary’s tough road is going to be with people who feel she can be president, but don’t want to vote for her due to image problems. So she’s smartly fighting that problem with this approach. Doubly smart because she’s the only candidate who can get away with starting like this, already setting her out as a different candidate.