Friday Open Thread [2.20.15]
CNN: “As Clinton eyes another run at the presidency in 2016, some close to her — especially those who are cheering reports she may wait until summer to officially announce a bid — point to Nixon’s successful 1968 presidential bid as a positive sign, particularly how Nixon’s public operation went dark for about six months before entering the race.”
“Despite being the presumed Democratic front-runner since Obama was reelected in 2012, Clinton has been largely absent from the public spotlight since the midterms wrapped in November 2014. And with the exception of the occasional paid speech and non-profit event, she could lay-low through the spring, a months-long hiatus similar to one Nixon took more than fifty years ago before winning the presidency for the first time.”
Bill Kristol: “It’s of course very early in the 2016 cycle. But it’s never too early for some healthy alarm. Are we the only ones who are struck that many of the leading Republican candidates, whether moderate or conservative, seem to be planning stale and tired campaigns? Hillary will herself, it’s safe to predict, run a stale campaign with tired themes. But the polls suggest she would prevail in a conventional matchup of boring campaigns. We’re all free to ignore the fire bell in the night, and hope for the best. But it would be a shame to have to explain in November 2016 how the Republican party decided to sleepwalk to defeat.”
Amy Walter: “One of the biggest assets for Democrats – especially for Hillary Clinton – going into this next election is the fact that they are much more ideologically united than the GOP. From social issues to economic ones, the overwhelming majority of Democrats are on the same page. This, of course, leaves little room for a primary challenger to Hillary Clinton to expose a gap or drive a wedge.”
“Not so much for Republicans who are divided on almost everything other than foreign policy and a desire to repeal Obamacare. This is will not only make it difficult for a Republican to become a ‘consensus’ candidate in the primary, but could make it difficult to unite the party post-primary as well.”
Should be interesting to see the Republicans in post Obama mode, I expect an epidemic of Benghazi Fever, but it just ain’t the same. As for Dem unity I expect most posters here would not agree, but I also expect progressives will be suppressed and ignored at the national level, Bernie Sanders or not.
Ignoring the progressive base is the cornerstone of Democratic party electioneering.
If you really want to energize the base, nominate Fauxcohontas and let her loose bashing the uber rich, Wall Street and the producers in this country, but make sure she doesn’t let it slip that her net worth is more than $7,000,000. Some, but not all, might see this as ironic as she is a 1 percenter.
Yes, the incredibly stupid — read “conservatives” — might see it as ironic that someone with money thinks our policies should be more generous to those without. Do yourself a favor, robberbaron — never get any Preparation H on you. It shrinks tissue like you to the vanishing point.
Geezer- Bravo! You are a clever one! Way to stay on topic and not resort to ad hominem attack. You will never convince me that the ruling class (Warren and her ilk) give a rip about the ordinary people. If they did, they would not continue to degrade societal values, bitch about how unfair life is and in general agitate everyone who still believes in the work ethic. She is a total fraud and if she runs for higher office, it will be discovered.
Warren does not degrade societal values, whatever that means, and I don’t think it means anything intelligent. Are you trying to say that, while everyone in this country is free to pursue whatever personal happiness they wish, you intend to impose a set of “values” that can be graded? Everyone is free to live the way you think best.
In what sense is Warren of the “ruling class”? By dint of having a high net worth, or by her former job in academia? Why should I care what she “feels” about anyone instead of how she analyzes the situation and what she would do about it? What part of consumers’ rights aggrieves you? In what way does she “agitate everyone who still believes in the work ethic”? How is consumer rights in the financial arena against the working man? It seems strongly pro-working man to me. The poor don’t have bank accounts.
In short, discuss her intelligently or yap off.