I think that Juan Williams is onto something here in his Wall Street Journal column:
“I’m not running for my husband’s third term. I’m not running for President Obama’s third term,†she told late-night talk-show host Stephen Colbert on Oct. 27. “I’m running for my first term.â€
Even so, when a Democratic debate moderator asked her in October to “name the one way that your administration would not be a third term of President Obama,†Mrs. Clinton avoided policy detail: “Well, I think that’s pretty obvious,†she responded. “I think being the first woman president would be quite a change from the presidents we’ve had up until this point, including President Obama.â€
That evasive answer demonstrates the conflicting desire of the Clinton campaign to keep some distance from the president even as she signals to his supporters that she remains close to him.
For both politicians, the relationship is transactional. Mr. Obama gets a successor who will defend his already much-debated legacy and fight to protect his signature accomplishments on health care, Wall Street and student-loan reform.
In exchange, Mrs. Clinton gets the best advocate to fire up the Democratic base and pull it to the polls in November in the numbers she needs to become the first female president of the United States.
but he doesn’t quite take his thinking to its logical conclusion. Hillary Clinton has a formidable challenge before her. She must capitalize on her husband’s support and Barack Obama’s without their giving the impression that they’re running for their own third terms. Keep in mind that these are both men who fit Alice Roosevelt’s description of her father, Theodore: “He wants to be the bride at every wedding, the corpse at every funeral, and the baby at every christening.” She must invoke their legacies while differentiating herself from them.
I doubt that she will be successful. I think that most of those who vote for her in 2016 will actually be voting for the third Bill Clinton term or the third Barack Obama term or both. Clinton and Obama fatigue will be in competition with Clinton and Obama enthusiasm.
However, she will be assisted in her efforts by other allies: the press. So far they have studiously avoided covering her campaign, fearful of what they might uncover. Such is their detestation of the Republicans that I think that will persist right through November 2016. How you drum up enthusiasm for a candidate while lobbing softballs or just maintaining radio silence is unclear to me.
” So far they have studiously avoided covering her campaign, fearful of what they might uncover.”
Seriously? What is left to uncover? Especially that doesn’t require effort? The media wants to make money. What gets more coverage at lower cost? Trump calling someone a dickhead or an in depth investigation on anything about Hillary? Are they finally going to prove she killed Vince Foster? (Seen any in depth reporting on Trump? Didn’t think so.)
Steve
Saw a book cover at Barnes and Noble last week with the Hill’s picture on the cover. Title was “An American Evita”. Didn’t open it or read it. Too busy. Sure wonder if it was a hit piece or, more likely, her own Idea.
Hillary has generated a lot of uncomplimentary books, opinion pieces, and discontent from the public at large. But, the Clinton name is larger than life, and has withstood all the static derived from their slimy bad behavior. It’s like people have simply come to accept the fact they are a dishonest, untrustworthy, corrupt couple because they are all the democratic party has at the moment to run for POTUS. It’s either them or nobody…..
It’s actually sad that out of over 300 million people the Clintons are the best the dems could come up with! Sadder still, is that HRC will garner lots of votes, despite her callous, calculating ways and unimpressive resume, just because she is a democratic woman. It’s identity politics, rather than quality people, at play in the democratic party.
I don’t think there’s a lot of interest in covering HC because she is the presumptive nominee and what passes for the dem primary is uninteresting (to put it charitably) compared to the GoP primary. I think that will change when candidates are set and are going head-to-head.
The press (esp NYT) is in the tank for Hillary and the core Dem voters won’t turn on her no matter what. I became convinced of this when the news broke of her running a shadow State Department and the same people whose heads exploded over Dick Cheney’s secrecy and abuse of power all let out a collective yawn.
I’d like to think that if journalists dug into the Clinton Foundation corruption (if this was a GOP candidate, how many pictures of starving Haitian babies would we have seen by now?) and Bill’s sleazy activities with his billionaire pedophile friends, that it would tip the scales away from Hillary but I’m not convinced it would make a bit of difference.
I took note of CStanley’s descriptive post regarding Hillary. It was hard hitting and spot on. However, it remains mind boggling to me how many democrats still see HRC as decent enough to take the mantle of POTUS.
And, in searching for what she and her husband could possibility do causing more dems’ sensibility to “jump the shark,” shunning her, only one action came to mind — if she and Bill changed their party affiliation and became “republicans.” IMO, that one flip alone had the possibility of lifting the stalwartness of many on the left, as their subjective bitterness towards the opposition party far surpasses their blinded ideological support for such an unworthy presidential candidate as Hillary Clinton.