National

It's the early 1980's. You are a Sci-Fi fan. That means you loved the Star Wars and Star Trek movies. Remember V? As in V: The Original Miniseries and V: The Final Battle and then V: The Series that lasted for one season. It was a show about human-looking aliens arriving on Earth, allegedly in peace. They had a bargain for the Earth: they would cure cancer and give humans their technology in exchange for allowing them to use some of Earth's natural resources to manufacture a chemical that would save their home planet's environment. Or Something. But they did not come in peace. They came here to harvest us for food, and to take all of the Earth's water. Oh yes, and they were not humans. They were not even mammals. They were lizards. There is a scene, shown in the promo above, where two shuttle craft land at an industrial plant, and out come untold hundreds of Visitors. A plant worker asks "How many of them are there?" That's how I feel about Republicans running for President.

Last night the fifth season of Game of Thrones premiered on HBO. So the DNC decided to have a little fun and portray each of the Republican candidates as a family House in the fantasy series. Some of these are quite good.

Steve Benen:

[T]he kickoff told us quite a bit about the kind of campaign Clinton intends to run, and the key differences from her previous candidacy. There’s also increased clarity Clinton’s rationale: “Everyday Americans need a champion, and I want to be that champion.” As one-sentence summaries go, that’s not a bad pitch. But as yesterday’s developments unfolded, I found myself thinking about history.

The historical angles Benen thought of for Hillary's candidacy: 1) The opportunity for the first woman president; 2) an instant intra-party frontrunner without precedent; 3) Clinton brings a unique resume to voters (she would be the first president to be both a cabinet secretary and a statewide officer since 1856); 4) Parties usually struggle to win three in a row (Since 1952, it has only been done once, twice if you consider 2000 a win for the Democrats that got stolen, which I do).

This statement from Charles Lammot DuPont Copeland is simply pitiful.

“Hillary Clinton has been running for President for at least a decade, and today she finally made it official. Since she re-emerged into the spotlight, voters have been reminded that the word “scandal" is synonymous with “Clinton.” As the Clinton record is examined over the months to come, voters in Delaware will become very familiar with the troubling practices of Clinton, Inc. We look forward to seeing how Clinton answers for her countless ethical issues, conflict-of-interest allegations, and hypocrisies on key issues.”

It does chart out the 24/7/365 smear campaign the GOP is going to run against her though. So points for honestly, I suppose.

New York Times: “He defeated her in a grueling Democratic nomination battle. Then she pursued his agenda across the world as secretary of state. Now, the delicate relationship between Hillary Rodham Clinton and President Obama is about to get even more complicated.” “For months, Mrs. Clinton and her team have pored over Mr. Obama’s poll ratings, policies and constituencies, seeking to solve a central riddle for the campaign she is about to begin: How can she run for president as her own person, without criticizing the sitting president she served — while her Republican opponents will be working to demonize them both?” Dan Balz: “Her every step will be analyzed for signs of change or continuity. Has she learned from her loss to then-candidate Barack Obama in the 2008 primaries? If so, what? Does she act entitled or hungry? Has she shifted on foreign policy issues since she was Obama’s secretary of state?” On Twitter, Hillary has been quite glowing about the President's accomplishments, especially in the areas of Equality and Obamacare. She may go more hawkish on ISIS, but she will term it as doing more. I think she knows that it will hurt her on the left flank to create too much distance between herself and her former boss. That was the lesson of 2000, and the Clintons then thought Gore should have used them much more. She will not now agree with Al Gore on being her own candidate.

A new Bloomberg National poll finds that 72% of Democrats and independents said it would be a good thing for the Democratic Party if Hillary Clinton were to face a “serious” challenger for the presidential nomination. Well, it seems that she will have at least three challengers. Whether they are serious depends on three things: 1) Hillary's performance; 2) the voters; and 3) the challengers themselves. Remember, Hillary is riding high in the polls not because of some accident. The Democratic base overwhelmingly wants her to be their nominee, while, contrarily, they want a serious challenge for her. This is probably because a serious contested and drawn out battle between Obama and Clinton in 2008 strengthen Obama and prepared him for McCain in the fall. Well, there is no Obama on the scene, and the conditions are not there for an Obama to emerge this time to challenge Clinton.

Roger Simon: "There is a poison pill inside the Republican Party and if its presidential hopefuls keep swallowing it, they are going to choke off their chances for the White House. The religious right has managed to convince some potential candidates that it is extremely powerful. It has convinced the more gullible ones that they must grovel, kowtow and genuflect before it. This is nonsense. As I have written before, the religious right has not gotten the nominee it has wanted since Ronald Reagan. It is a paper tiger. And by taking the poison pill that the religious right offers, the potential candidates risk alienating the rest of the nation." But that's not what the right wing is saying. They are telling this frightened cowards of candidates that they cannot ever hope to win without them. On Monday, Iowa’s Steve Deace was talking to the Family Leader’s Bob Vander Plaats about the necessity of opposing marriage equality. Vander Plaats, who has previously said that “You cannot run away from the heart of God and expect God to bless the country,” told Deace that Republicans are hurting their election chances by not standing firmly enough against gay rights. Vander Plaats insisted of Republicans that “They’ll never win again without this base.” Has the base not been with the GOP in 2008 and 2012? The religious right loved Sarah Palin and they turned out for her, and she and they got destroyed in a massive landslide for Barack Obama. The religious right was with Mitt Romney because they wanted to get rid of Obama in 2012. They all believed, seriously believed, that Romney would win and they were devastated when he did not. I always love this instantly revisionist denial that Republicans and conservatives go through when they lose. I guarantee you that when GOP Nominee Ted Cruz loses 49 states to Hillary, the religious right will say he was not conservative enough and that is why he did not win.