Sunday Open Thread [4.7.13]
Robert Shrum in the wonderfully titled “Be Afraid, GOP: Hillary Clinton Is Back and She Will Beat You in 2016:”
And all of [the Hillary in 2016 talk] does something else: it sends the chill wind of a potential 16 years of Democrats in the White House, along with a Supreme Court where the justices actually do justice, through the fevered right-wing swamps of the Clinton-haters and the Obama-abominators who see the white-male dominated America of their imagining fading away. My colleague, friend, and podcast sparring partner David Frum is certainly not among them—instead he’s offered the GOP perceptive counsel, fortunately spurned so far and perhaps indefinitely, about how to remake the party in substance as well as style. Now, however, on CNN and in The Daily Beast, he has weighed in with advice for Democrats and Clinton herself: She would be “a mistake for 2016.” It is a provocative, fresh, and seemingly well-argued piece—but it’s just plain wrong.
While Frum is a reasonable Republican these days, he is still a Republican. His advice that Clinton would be a mistake should be taken for what it is: a scared Republican trying to dissuade us from the path of guaranteed victory. Shrum goes on to refute Frum’s points about choosing the “next in line,” Hillary’s age, and rehashing the tired Clinton scandals and then takes what I think is delight in telling the Republicans to be afraid, be very afraid.
Frum is arguably the most rational of the Republicans, he makes sense more times than not and as such is anathema to many on the far right. Great, if they listened to him and stopped chanting “we were not conservative enough in 2012” they might have a shot. But not against Hilary, like Obama she’s not perfect but unlike Obama she’s a fighter who will meet and beat the Republicans at their own game. And I can’t wait.
Yeah, I noticed that David had on his Republican suit when writing that piece. The bottom line is that as a Republican he obviously doesn’t want Hilary. David is sane and reasonable, but you are correct he is a Republican.
His affinity is always very clear in two areas, Republicans (the sane version) and Israel. I got tired of criticizing him about being an Israel apologist back in the old Frum Forum days. Now I mostly just make a snarky comment.
First, the specter of Bob Schrum back is definitely a reason to think about whether Hillary ought to be next. Seriously.
Second, Frum is pretty transparent here — he wants the Dems to level the playing field so that whatever candidate comes out of their so-called “re-assessment” has a fighting chance.
Third, I think that discussing Hillary as an “inheritor” of anything at this point (I thought differently in 2007, 2008) dismisses her genuinely hard work and genuine success as Secretary of State. The last couple of GOP losers did absolutely nothing to burnish their credentials or resumes or standing in the world the way she did. Ignoring her work is some silly Boy’s Club bullshit.
Fourth, while I love the idea of Hillary just sweeping it all, it is still early days. But I would want her to win just because she will make the GOP’s collective head explode. And I’ve earned the right to see that, I think. But unless she starts campaigning otherwise, I’m pretty sure Hillary won’t be some progressive savior.
No, she won’t and for that, if she runs, she will most likely have my support because I think she will govern from the center.
However it is so early. We are only 77 days into this four year term. Granted, Iowa is under 3 years away. Setting her up as heir apparent may prove her undoing as it did in 2008. I remember that time very well. The only reason she didn’t get swept in without opposition, was because many were tired of Bush/Clinton presidential dominance at that time.
We were tired in 2008 of seeing the same people we saw in 92 running the campaign. If she runs, she will need a brand new staff attuned to life today, young, vibrant, computer savvy, exciting, not someone still running on the mantle just handed to us from the Reagan Tax Cuts….
Other than that fatigue, which she will need a lot of help to overcome, she is a most amazing person. I love her.
However it is so early. We are only 77 days into this four year term. Granted, Iowa is under 3 years away. Setting her up as heir apparent may prove her undoing as it did in 2008. I remember that time very well. The only reason she didn’t get swept in without opposition, was because many were tired of Bush/Clinton presidential dominance at that time.
We were tired in 2008 of seeing the same people we saw in 92 running the campaign. If she runs, she will need a brand new staff attuned to life today, young, vibrant, computer savvy, exciting, not someone still running on the mantle just handed to us from the Reagan Tax Cuts….
Other than that fatigue, which she will need a lot of help to overcome, she is a most amazing person. I love her.
I guess you love her twice as much?
Everything kavips said—and then even Newt Gingrich on whatever talkshow early last week, prior to Hilary attending some celebratory womens’ event, commented quite resolutely and resignedly that she is a darn great contender if she would choose to run (and that wasn’t even the topic of his being there), she could win, he had worked with her on policy issues and had been a credible, formidable, worker and talent on issues. He didn’t even coyly hedge her strength. I DO NOT like Newt Gingrich. But his stock went up with me on his candid reply.
Her biggest handicap? Can she remain low, and not let pre-announcement speculation, tease, pundits, flattery, bring her out too early? To be seen. America tires early in this nanosecond attention span of ours, and one bad sound byte has blown a whole campaign, real or imagined.
Hillary Clinton should run on the Universal Healthcare platform which she championed under her husband’s administration.