44 and 45

Filed in National by on July 30, 2013

P072913CK-0090

Word is that Hillary is having lunch with Joe Biden today, after having lunch with the President yesterday. The combination of lunches tells me that she is informing them that she either is or is not running in 2016.

About the Author ()

Comments (15)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. PluribusUnum says:
    July 30, 2013 at 9:37 am

    Doubtful. they’re probably just having lunch.

  2. cassandra_m says:
    July 30, 2013 at 9:56 am

    Just having lunch and getting another week’s worth of Will She or Won’t She press. This campaign-in-waiting is really interesting to watch — so far it’s been a pretty smart operation. The WaPo yesterday reported on two key Obama campaign staffers signing on to the Ready for Hillary effort. If she runs, am keeping my fingers crossed that she does not turn to the old campaign crew.

  3. Truth Teller says:
    July 30, 2013 at 2:53 pm

    The best person for the job by far Go Hillary

  4. El Somnambulo says:
    July 30, 2013 at 3:11 pm

    She ran a piss-poor campaign in 2008. She seemed inevitable then as well.

    Don’t forget, candidates ultimately shape the campaigns they run, and her track record tells me she’s far less inevitable than she appears.

  5. cassandra_m says:
    July 30, 2013 at 4:01 pm

    Inevitability this far out doesn’t mean much, really. And she won her NY Senate races pretty convincingly. If she’s learned the lessons of the 2008 campaign (mainly not hiring the same played out Clinton crew), she should be a formidable candidate.

  6. socialistic ben says:
    July 30, 2013 at 4:06 pm

    Obama was an unforeseen variable in ’08. I think Hillary ran a pretty good campaign aside from no one (in her campaign) taking Obama seriously until it was too late…. then they handled it poorly…. But it could have been worse…. it could have been ANY republican nonminee (copywrite socben corp) for the past 3 elections.
    I think she runs again. This time without an Obama to shake up history. By this time in the ’08 cycle, leftnuts like me were already excited about WHEN Obama would run. The only new Democratic face that garners any excitement IMO, is Senator Warren… and I just don’t see her running for President. (instead i hope she has a 5+ term senate career and keeps a nice pyramid of CEO skulls in her office)

  7. Delaware Dem says:
    July 30, 2013 at 4:38 pm

    Ben is right. With no Obama in 2008, Hillary would have destroyed the field. Obama was the single variable that made her candidacy fail for two reasons: 1) the Iraq issue and 2) his campaign team. He was the perfect candidate that assembled the perfect team and took advantage of the one perfect issue that was Hillary’s Achilles Heel. It was a perfect storm, and even then, he barely beat her. In 2016, that will not happen again.

    And that is because of a couple of reasons. First, there is no unifying issue that unites the progressive left like Iraq did. Second, there is no dark horse Obama candidate out there. O’Malley, Cuomo and Warren do not have the stuff. Third, Obama’s campaign team will be Hillary’s campaign team this time around. Some of them have already joined up with the Ready for Hillary PAC.

  8. El Somnambulo says:
    July 30, 2013 at 4:56 pm

    Obama was NOT an unforeseen variable. He was in the race, was seen as possibly the most viable alternative to Hillary, and, for quite some time, he languished to the point where he was viewed as a disappointment.

    If anything, Clinton’s campaign was based on the aura of inevitability. Which is why, when that aura was punctured, there wasn’t much to fall back on.

    And, DD, you stated that ‘O’Malley, Cuomo and Warren do not have the stuff’. That’s an assertion without support. We’ll find out who has the stuff. Personally, I’d take an O’Malley/Warren ticket (or vice versa) over Hillary any day.

    To someone like me, she offers that Muskie-esque support that is ‘a mile wide and an inch deep’. Just like she did in 2008.

    Don’t get me wrong, she’s the favorite. But she was the overwhelming favorite in 2008 as well. Maybe she’ll be a better candidate eight years later, maybe she won’t.

  9. socialistic ben says:
    July 30, 2013 at 5:11 pm

    El som, maybe not unforeseen by wonks, bloggers, people paying attention etc… but judging by the way the MSM and the Hillary Campaign reacted to him… They never saw it coming.

    I think the GOP’s desperate, sad attempts to make Benghazi the next Nuremberg is telling.

  10. El Somnambulo says:
    July 30, 2013 at 5:25 pm

    Any candidate capable of inflicting this on an unsuspecting music-loving American public..:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5FvyGydc8no

    …is capable of losing.

    (BTW, brown and pale blue? Did someone get PAID for that?)

    And, Ben, you proved my point. Any campaign incapable of reacting to ‘unforeseen variables’, even though they were foreseeable, is incapable of winning. The fact that they ‘never saw it coming’ is an indictment of the campaign.

    There were, and there will BE, unforeseen variables. There always are.

  11. Knows better says:
    July 30, 2013 at 5:31 pm

    All we have for you folks is that we voted for Hillary back in the day. When Obama was the nominee we voted for him…BOTH times. Now we hope we have the chance to vote for Hillary again (primary), and again (1st term) and again (well DUH!).

    We also hope that the DEGOP runs COD again as the entertainment that nitwit provides is PRICELESS and she won’t stand a chance anyhow. When she opens her mouth stupid comes out and it’s just plain WTF stuff. She even beats Palin and Bachman in open mouth/stupid stuff comes out. All three set things back for women in such a way it’s truly SAD for all the women on the planet.

  12. Tom McKenney says:
    July 30, 2013 at 6:25 pm

    Progressives flocked to Obama because of the Iraq vote even though Clinton’s stands were more progressive. Before you jump on my case look it up. Anybody who thought Obama was not going to follow Bush’s war policies was not paying attention. Susan Powers comment Hillary was a monster eclipsed the real news that that day when she announced to the British there would no change in policy towards Iraq.

  13. El Somnambulo says:
    July 30, 2013 at 6:42 pm

    Were Clinton’s stands more progressive? Maybe. But I, and I think lots of other D’s, remember that Bill Clinton basically sold out to the corporations and was the guiding force behind the Democratic Leadership Council.

    I, for one, wanted no part of another presidency based on that.

    Besides, it’s not as if Iraq wasn’t a big deal. He was right, she was wrong.

  14. Tom McKenney says:
    July 30, 2013 at 11:22 pm

    Has Obama been any tougher on corporations ? I don’t see it. I see you ignored the continuation of the Bush policies. There are no saints in the business of politics.

  15. El Somnambulo says:
    July 31, 2013 at 8:18 am

    Not saying there are. Just trying to (a) recreate what happened in 2007-2008, and (b) point out that being right on Iraq is no small thing.

    I’m not opposed to Clinton’s prospective candidacy, just pointing out that the meme of her inevitability was disproven in 2008, and it’s no sure thing in 2016.

    Nothing more.

«
»